Bernie Sanders Open To 2016 Presidential Run

[monmouth3]

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) wants to make sure that there is a strong progressive voice in the 2016 presidential field, and he's willing to jump in if no one else does.

"There are people in this world who, ever since they were 12 years of age, they decided they wanted to be president of the United States. That is honestly not me," Sanders told the Burlington Free Press last week. "Anyone who really, really wants to be president is slightly crazy because this is an unbelievably difficult job given the crises that this country faces today."

Nevertheless, Sanders said that there needs to be a 2016 candidate who will go after Wall Street, focus on poverty and the collapse of the middle class, address global warming and oppose cuts to Social Security and Medicare -- all issues that Sanders has taken on while in the Senate.

And according to the Free Press, "Sanders says he is willing to consider making a run if no one else with progressive views similar to his ends up taking the plunge."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/18/bernie-sanders-2016_n_4295872.html

[VanillaRhapsody]

1. Love me some Bernie...

but he won't beat Chris Christie...Just sayin.

[cali]

16. he's not running to win- should he run. He's running to push

other candidates to the left

[VanillaRhapsody]

17. great...but I will still vote for Hillary cause she is going to be the first woman

to beat the republicans asses in a run for President.

[cali]

31. if a woman is all that counts to you, go root for Palin

[VanillaRhapsody]

35. I vote for Democrats...I want to BEAT the Republicans...particularly the men...

Don't you?

Wow....you are really scraping the bottom of the barrel if this is your response...

[cali]

42. I get you. To you it's one big partisan game

and you are the expert when it comes to dishing it out from the bottom of the barrel.

You never discuss issues.

[VanillaRhapsody]

48. Oh I don't funny that I do post links often to support my contentions.

Just because you don't like my responses doesn't invalidate them.

[VanillaRhapsody]

65. Says you....

All I hear is how bad the Democrats are...on a Democratic Forum.

[NorthCarolina]

111. You really consider Hillary

to be a "Democrat"?

[VanillaRhapsody]

114. Yes and I consider myself one too...Do you still consider Obama one?

This is Democratic Underground remember?

[NorthCarolina]

115. Actually,

I consider them both to be Regan Era Republicans. Obama himself has even publicly admitted to being such.

Is posting the truth suddenly against DU rules?

[VanillaRhapsody]

116. Your "consideration" duly noted and dually wrong.

If you are calling them Republicans then you are most certainly NOT telling the truth sir...

I think you need to worry about the real "Republicans" a little closer to home "North Carolina" don't you? Seems to me you sure use a few more of your so-called "Republicans" like Hillary and Pres. Obama down there...

You know...the state that gives us Virginia Foxx!
Seems to me with local politics what it is down there....YOU would know the difference.

[NorthCarolina]

117. Actually, I'm against ALL Republicans and their policies

whether they call themselves a Republican or a Democrat makes no difference to me. It's the conservative ideology I despise.

[VanillaRhapsody]

154. Yeah well.....you would gladly trade a Blue Dog for your nutcase Virginia Foxx

any day. If you don't know the difference....well that would just be pathetic now wouldn't it?

[sabrina 1]

127. Lol, you've GOT to be kidding. Unless you think Independents and Democrats are in love with

that Right Wing Republican, not to mention young people.

Bernie would easily beat Christie. His problem will be MONEY from the Corporate Powers who run this country. In both parties.

His views are mainstream and if he had the money to get them to the people, he would be a real challenge to anyone else who runs.

[Scootaloo]

2. The senate would miss him, certainly

I like Sanders, but I'm leery of the notion of siphoning all the good liberals out of the legislative and putting them into the executive.

[ann---]

3. I love him dearly, but

I don't think he can win. Little national recognition and he's too old for some people.

[Jackpine Radical]

5. He could do a lot of good in the primaries, forcing the mainstream leftward.

If he gets in & starts talking progressivism, the rest of the field will have to at least take note.

[progressoid]

6. Yes, and maybe open the eyes of some voters too.

I don't expect him to win but his running would be a good thing for us IMHO.

[dreamnightwind]

12. I think opening the eyes of voters is the main thing

The corporate Dems won't change stripes because of a left-flank candidate. They might pay it lip-service in the primaries but then it'll all be forgotten about.

The voters, that's another matter entirely. There is a vast untapped pool of frustrated energy in this country, lurking in the hearts of the downtrodden. It has nowhere to go because there is nobody that "matters" who speaks to their needs. There's no telling what will happen when they hear policies that will help, when they hear exactly why things are so messed up, when the politician they are listening to doesn't need to consult focus groups before speaking because they are speaking truth to power, with the conviction that comes from that.

Someone needs to take that and run with it. And if we don't, the right-wing will, in some very destructive and fascist ways. We've seen it many times in history. Pissed off people with no clear understanding of what is wrong and no roadmap to improving their situation will look for scapegoats, usually the wrong people.

It is pretty simple to explain all of this to people, and many of them will understand. It won't happen with corporate-sponsored candidates who are busy negotiating global "trade" agreements, we need the opposite of that.

Is Sanders the right guy? Maybe, I love him more than any other politician. I'm not sure if he has enough energy but he certainly has the right message. We need more than a Kucinich or Nader token candidacy, we need real energy and drive. Warren? I think that has a better chance. Grayson too, probably others I'm not thinking of.

[NorthCarolina]

112. Well, if everyone thinks like that

you're probably right. For my money I say Never say Never!. All he needs to be viable is your vote.

[dotymed]

121. "All he needs to be viable is your vote."

Thank you.

How many Democrats are sick that what was once "our party", has been hijacked by corporate interests? Bernie is a Democratic Socialist who uses an (I) behind his name because he is Independent, he is beholden to no one.

It may seem like "catch-22" logic to elect an Independent with a proven track record, to re-gain the now democratic party.

The Democratic party of FDR left me, Bernie is still (IMO) the leader of the FDR party. He never left. He proves it daily. Yes, this is DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND, because of the 2000 selection of Bush.

Since then, after finally getting rid of the bush thugs, we have witnessed great deceits by the democratic party as they have shifted ever rightward (corporate, 1%, whatever) and our hope for change through our party has not been attempted.

I, and I hope, true Democrats, with the vision of FDR will work and vote for Bernie. He is a proven Democrat.

[NorthCarolina]

124. You can bet that on this site he'll be

peppered with "Unelectable", "another Nader", "fringe leftist". It's all very predictable, and the corporate 'media' will be doing the same. If you can't run ON issues and specifics, then best to discredit the guy the people SHOULD be voting for, scaring them back to your basic 'electable' 'moderate' establishment choice. Will folks be so easily scared this time around? Who knows...this country is not blessed with a highly educated or informed electorate.

[dotymed]

128. Sadly, you are right.

It seems that on a site whose members claim to seek people first representation that Senator Sanders would be unbeatable.

Instead it is "party first" for most.

Yep, it IS DEMOCRATIC underground. Bernie does have his own avatar, but not a (D) behind his name.

With this party first mentality, we won't change anything.
If it means giving up on this site, I will do whatever it takes to support Senator Sanders if he (hopefully) does run.

[woo me with science]

133. "If you can't run ON issues and specifics,

then best to discredit the guy the people SHOULD be voting for, scaring them back to your basic 'electable' 'moderate' establishment choice."

You nailed it. We'll be seeing a hell of a lot of that, because the Third Way sure as hell can't run on their issues.

[NorthCarolina]

135. So, you don't think Obama could have been elected had he campaigned on

Chained CPI for Social Security, or enactment of a NEW trade agreement called the TPP, or raising the retirement age for Medicare, or mass indiscriminate spying on American Citizens, and all the little goodies that have become part and parcel of the NEW Democratic party (post election of course) via our third-way contingent?

[MyshkinCommaPrince]

4. The West Wing

President Bartlett entered the race to help move the discourse in certain directions and keep the other candidates "honest". Then he won the election. Maybe real life could echo fiction. Ahh, if only.

[otherone]

7. Bernie!

:-D

[tblue]

15. Wouldn't that be AWESOME?!

Sanders/Warren '16!

[VanillaRhapsody]

18. I wouldn't hold my breath.

[alp227]

8. On Friday's Thom Hartmann show the senator made similar comments.

[polichick]

9. He's got the right issues. And he's also right that...

some people have always wanted to be prez - and some would prefer not to be, but see a need for a leader who will stand with the people on the big issues.

I'll go with the latter.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. Good. He really is "not as bad" as the Repug or 3rd Way Dem candidates.

[VanillaRhapsody]

20. but he can't beat

Chris Christie.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

24. Probably not. But, he's still better than the usual 3rd Way "not as bad" candidates we get from

the party bosses and moneymen.

[VanillaRhapsody]

25. but at least they can win...

and we really need another

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

26. So, if the Dems want the votes that Sanders might get..they should run a leftist candidate.

It's up to the candidates to convince people to vote for them.

[VanillaRhapsody]

36. The Dems won't win that way....

you know the election is not won by what the people on DU want right?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

39. Then they should blame themselves not Sanders.

It's up to the candidates to convince people to vote for them. If they move too far to the right and Sanders convinces some to vote for them rather than another 3rd Way hack, whose fault is that?

[VanillaRhapsody]

43. WTF? It won't happen...as I said.

a Socialist is not going to win....the demographics won't allow it...


However....we DO have a candidate with the gravitas to pull it off....hmmmmm wonder who that could be

(fyi...I call myself a Social Democrat and believe all Americans are Socialists).

[jeff47]

54. Really? You think the candidate who ran as a centrist in 2008

is a liberal?

Uh-huh. Either we're moving "liberal" very far to the right, or Clinton was lying in 2008. Which will be a problem when she contradicts herself in 2016, if she's as liberal as you claim.

[VanillaRhapsody]

62. Where did I say that? I do note that this is a Democratic forum however.

[jeff47]

71. You seem to not understand basic terminology.

"Progressive" is used by liberals who have bought into the GOP's sneer campaign against "liberal".

[VanillaRhapsody]

74. No progressive was used by Liberals who were afraid of the word Liberal...

I have never called myself a Progressive.

Apparently YOU have a problem with terminology....I happen to have been grown when she actually said it.

[jeff47]

77. And as I said below, calling myself Santa doesn't make be a jolly man in a red suit.

Btw, you should probably spend the time to make your post coherent. Your post subject agrees with my assertion that "progressives" are liberals fleeing from the term "liberal".

Since you double-posted last time instead of editing, let me direct you to the "edit" link in the bottom-right of your post.

[VanillaRhapsody]

78. Whatever...I have been here long enough I don't need your directions...

Perhaps it was intentional....

[jeff47]

80. Sure, since you appear to be getting paid by the post. (nt)

[VanillaRhapsody]

82. I wish!

still haven't gotten my George Soros check either!

[jeff47]

108. So it's an hourly gig then? (nt)

[VanillaRhapsody]

136. Not a "gig" at all.....would that it was...

be nice to get paid just to be a Democrat. Flattered that you seem to think I am good enough at it that I should get paid...

Thanks!!

[VanillaRhapsody]

63. You don't seem to know the word Progressive...

[jeff47]

68. That's because it's the label used by cowards unwilling to call themselves "liberal". (nt)

[VanillaRhapsody]

91. You do know there are quite a few Progressive Dems around DU that won't

appreciate you calling them cowards!

[jeff47]

107. Then they should stop running away from the word "liberal"

in the mistaken belief that they can run away from words faster than conservatives can demonize them.

[dotymed]

122. Speak for yourself.

I have been a Proud Progressive all of my voting life. What you or any other says about that, I could care less.

Look up the definitions and choose for yourself. I did.

BTW, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, FDR, etc...considered themselves Progressives also.

[jeff47]

123. Words change meaning over time

The fact that you call yourself "a person" means something different than in Washington's day. Back then, being "a person" meant things like "not black" - they were only 3/5ths.

The recent flocking to the term "progressive" rose out of running away from Conservatives demonizing "liberal". As in "I'm not a liberal! I'm a progressive!".

[dotymed]

129. Thanks Jeff.

Etymology was my favorite in College. I chose the Progressive moniker long before your reference.

[VanillaRhapsody]

137. that word change took an act of Congress Jeff.

[Veilex]

57. I get the desire to win...

but winning should not require that we sell our soul.
A nominee wins on their ground game... not initial impressions.
Obama won because of enormous ground swell support, organization and proper messaging.
A great ground game can win the oval office for any nominee.

[VanillaRhapsody]

64. This is not just winning....its NOT LOSING!

[Veilex]

84. Winning is pointless if you sell out.

Winning is not everything. Never has been, never will be.
If we "win", but give everything away in the process...
we might as well have elected a Corporatist/Republican, because we will have, in reality, lost.

[VanillaRhapsody]

92. winning is only pointless to the losers....

Wait...remind me again...is this Democratic Underground?

[Veilex]

96. Yes it is... thats why winning is only worth while if your not a corporate sell out.

Being a "winner by any means necessary" is much more a corporatist view,
and I simply refuse to adapt such a self destructive ideology.

[VanillaRhapsody]

98. So you would rather have.... OH say a George W Bush redux...

than to have to swallow some of your "principles"...that would make you feel better about losing?

[Veilex]

102. Your premise is false... it assumes we can't win AND keep our ideals.

The very fact that you feel that way is depressing. We have to fight for what we want... else we just get
what we're allowed to have. Any nominee can win... it's all in the ground game.

After all, a no-name black guy managed to surprise everyone and make it into the Oval Office.
Everyone had just assumed HRC would be the Candidate, and she ended up not being...even though many people
claimed we couldn't win with Obama... but he had a great ground game and won.
We can do that again.

[VanillaRhapsody]

138. It means....WE can LOSE...your premise that we can't is wrong...

George Bush as an example. Thank goodness the Black guy won...or we would have President Romney. Or are you saying that Al Gore and John Kerry just doesn't meet our "ideals" so they lost.

[Veilex]

142. Where did I say "we cant" lose?

Your response smacks of an infantile knee-jerk reaction; I say your premise is wrong and you reply with what amounts to a childish "nuh uhhh... your wrong!"... really? It makes me think your not even willing to address the merits of the argument simply because you don't like it. Not exactly a "winning" strategy. Look, I'll repeat myself for your benefit, because I'm not willing to accept that you're not capable of a well articulated response. I'll even extrapolate to give you more to work with in a counter argument.

-Winning should not require that we sell our soul.
If we win, but have to bring ourselves down to the level of a republican to do so, then we haven't really won... the republicans have.
Even if, by chance, we don't win the election, if we can force the discussion back to topics that matter to us, then we can win something of a victory there. Changing the national narrative is a big deal, and is significantly understated in its importance. Forcing republicans to come out on items such as social security, food stamps, jobs, consumer protection, education, etc shines a light on them that either forces them to move a little bit to the left, or shows to the rest of the country what ass-hats they really are (which incidentally helps us win). This is a win-win scenario for us. Even if somehow we don't win the election (which I seriously don't see happening with how pissed off at the GOP the general populace has become), we can win in redirecting the narrative.

-A nominee wins on their ground game... not initial impressions.
Obama was nearly completely unknown on the national scale. Normally to become president, you must be in congress long enough for numerous corporate interests to firmly entrench their hooks into you, before you can stand a chance at a shot at the Oval office. Obama fast-tracked to the presidency quicker than anyone previous excepting only George Washington. He did it because his ground-game, his team's tactics and strategies, were swift and inclusive to the grass-roots groups out there. This was not a fluke... this was good planning well executed, and should be seen as proof of concept that any nominee, with a good ground game, can do the same.

[VanillaRhapsody]

143. So we are only supposed to have offense....but no defense???

It was ground game....no doubt I was part of that. BUT like I said....Obama didn't pull ahead UNTIL Bill Clinton flubbed in South Carolina...and it was racial.

I haven't forgotten how it happened.

[Veilex]

144. "So we are only supposed to have offense....but no defense???"

I'd call that grasping for straws. Are you even bothering to read the whole of the comment?
Your responses certainly indicate you're not. Since when has a ground-game ever been purely about offense OR defense? The short answer to that question is: never.

"BUT like I said....Obama didn't pull ahead UNTIL Bill Clinton flubbed in South Carolina...and it was racial."

Where exactly did you pose that argument is this thread? Are you presuming I'm too lazy to pay attention?
I'll save you the time; Its not in this thread, and frankly only serves to prove my point. Obama's ground game was far superior to that of the Clinton's, full stop, end of story. Make whatever excuses you like, but in the end HRC made mistakes that couldn't be recovered from... and if she could do that in the last election, you can damn well bet she can do it in the next one too.

Add to that the enormous number of republicans who have been gathering and manufacturing all manor of material to drub her political aspirations with, and HRC is nearly a guaranteed loss.

If anything, our best bet is to pretend that HRC is our front-runner, and then have our real front runner come from behind... exactly as what happened in the last presidential election.

[VanillaRhapsody]

145. You don't get to determine....full stop!

You are being myopic if you do...

HRC is a loss? I think not... When 67% favorable INCLUDING some Republicans? You are delusional.

[Veilex]

146. "You are being myopic if you do" Hardly... You're entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts.

The facts are Obama won. His strategies were incontrovertibly superior... if they hadn't been, HRC would be president.
She's not, so I'm right... unless you have some super secret evidence that shows otherwise, in which case I know a nice psychiatrist you should meet. So, yes, in this instance, I DO get to "determine....full stop!".

As to your statistical favorability ratings, where are you getting your numbers? I think you're the delusional one here.
Allow me to illustrate:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/hillary-clinton-s-ratings-drop-in-new-poll

In case you'd rather not follow the link, it says HRC was at a 56% favorability rating in april,
and is now at 46% rating. Thats a ten point drop! Thats huge!
That's also a sure fire indicator that the GOP smear machine is
alive and well.

Ironically, you're the one displaying a myopic view, consistently claiming that only HRC can win.
Its flat out untrue. In fact, HRC is damaged goods. That isn't to say she can't win, but she'd have a much harder
time of it. Likly more so than a different nominee.

You seem to project the failings of your arguments, consistently, onto others.
Again, not exactly a winning strategy... and is a page straight out of the republican play book.
I recommend a different strategy.
This one serves you, not at all.

[VanillaRhapsody]

147. So who do we have with a higher approval rating?

Damaged goods? When she has high approval ratings EVEN with Republicans...many of whom hate her....

You don't seem to understand Mathematics very well. We aren't going to win with ONLY Democrats.

[Veilex]

149. "So who do we have with a higher approval rating?"

A better question is who (aside from republicans) doesn't have a higher approval ratting than HRC at this point.
You are correct in that We aren't going to win with only Democrats... we need independents too.
Quite clearly HRC does not have the ear of independent voters... whereas many others, who have higher approval
than HRC's 46% (and dropping), do.

You don't seem to understand Mathematics very well.

Riiight...and yet you're the one that posted she had an approval rating of 67%
when it was, in fact, at a significantly lower 56% rating since april?
And 46% in the most recent poll? And I'm the one who doesn't understand math?
Try again.
Your projection of your personal failings at math reinforce just how wrong your argument is.
Additionally, your myopic clutching to HRC as a candidate shows an adherence to
confirmation bias and ignores current realities.

[VanillaRhapsody]

151. Do you understand it...

You didn't answer my question....Who does???

[Veilex]

152. So you think you're entitled to a specific response...

when you've failed to respond to 90% of the content in my replies? I think not.
I gave an answer... and frankly, I don't care if you like it, or even get it. If you're
incapable of understanding it, then thats a problem that falls on you... in which case,
I highly recommend you get that resolved. If you are capable of understanding
it, then your willfully choosing to ignore the answer and are opting to cherry pick
what you're willing to respond too... as you've done through our entire conversation.
I've provided links to back up many of my assertions... you've provided.... babble.
No, I'm done doing your research for you.
You think I'm wrong?
Prove it.

In short: You have your answer.
Don't like it? Tough.
Deal with it.

[HappyMe]

150. It sure as hell doesn't say much for HC that

Republicans like her. If her policies reflect repug values, then I'm sure I want nothing to do with her. She will not get my vote in the primary.

[Veilex]

99. Don't misunderstand me, I want us to win... however...

It's not a win if we have to give up all our ideals to do it.

[VanillaRhapsody]

100. baloney...ANY democrat is better than a Republican....

[Veilex]

103. I wish I could agree with that, I realy do.

I would grant that most Dems are better than Repubs... but there are some dems that are as dirty as they come. Very few mind, but they are there... DINOs.

[VanillaRhapsody]

104. I would STILL vote for one of them over ANY Republican...

[Veilex]

105. Understandable...

Last edited Wed Nov 20, 2013, 02:48 PM - Edit history (1)

We all have to do what we think is right.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

86. You're a socialist who won't vote for a socialist?

I think that Sanders is jam-packed with gravitas.

[VanillaRhapsody]

93. Socialist Democrat my dear...if Bernie ran as a Democrat...I would vote for him

and he cannot win unless he does...

and I also believe every American is a Socialist...they just don't know it.

[NorthCarolina]

134. They win because the

corporate media shills for them, and they have unlimited funds from their corporate sponsors, and the people are too dumb, or conditioned to be simply too partisan, to recognize they are being scammed from the get-go. So they win, the people loose; rinse, wash, repeat...UNLESS WE THE PEOPLE REFUSE TO ACCEPT THE STATUS QUO. Bernie will have my vote regardless of what "letter" follows his name on the ballot.

[grahamhgreen]

109. And Obama couldn't beat Hillary either, lol

[VanillaRhapsody]

139. and neither are hugely far left Candidates are they? LOL

I hear this every damn day on DU...

and DU is hardly microcosm of America is it?

[grahamhgreen]

140. Obama won because he ran far to the left of Hill. Fact is, Americans are far to the left of Obama:)

[VanillaRhapsody]

141. this is ridiculous....what are you saying Hillary is fascist?

Americans are not "far to the left" at all ....sorry. That's just laughable....Your scale must be huge! As I recall....Obama started being favored after her husband Bill made that verbal gaffe in South Carolina. How the Fuck is Obama "far left of Hillary" if she supported Universal Single Payer and a public option?

What you describe might fly among DU members...but that is not a microcosm of America...as I stated. Americans are hardly far left.

[grahamhgreen]

153. "Even when Democrats win, conservatives claim that their ideology is still dominant"

See: http://mediamatters.org/research/progmaj/

Obama supported single payer and a public option. As I recall Hillarycare was a similar model to Obamacare. I don't remember her pushing for single payer during the campaign.

But Americans are very far to the left of the both of them, they don't want the endless wars, they want prosecution of banksters, and war criminals, they want medicare for all, they want to tax the rich, they don't want chained-CPI, they want to strengthen benefits, etc etc etc.

The statement that America is a center-right country is nothing but a right wing meme.

What American Majority Wants: Polls

Along with the polling data on the The American Majority Project’s polling page, here is some info from recent polls:

Infrastructure investment:

Democracy Corps, November 2012:

52 percent agree that “we should invest now in infrastructure, education and technology, and re-hiring teachers and firefighters to get people back to work to make our country stronger in the long-term.”

Washington Post/ABC News, September 2012:

52 percent agreed that “spending money on projects like roads, bridges and technology development” was a better way for the government to create jobs than tax cuts.

YouGov, Dec 2012:

43 percent said President Obama’s plan for $50 billion in immediate new infrastructure spending was a “good idea;A only 28 percent said it was a bad idea.

NBC, Feb 2011:

71% percent of all respondents support Obama’s plan to spend $53 billion on high-speed rail and $30 billion on a national infrastructure bank.

Washington Post/Kaiser Family Foundation, August 2012:

63 percent believe that “additional spending on roads, bridges, and other public works projects” would help, not hurt, the economy.

Clarus Research Group, conducted for the Association of Equipment Manufacturers, December 2012:

77% percent believe the infrastructure in their state and throughout America “is in serious need of rebuilding and modernizing,” and 68% percent agree we need to make investments to build up our infrastructure to compete with foreign countries that are doing so.
Modernizing infrastructure is seen as “both a safety and economic issue” by 90% of voters nationwide.
A solid majority (61%) say the best way to pay for infrastructure improvements is to “use a combination of
funding sources such as some additional tax revenues, user fees and private investment.
84% of voters believe that “If the United States can afford to spend billions of dollars rebuilding the
infrastructure in foreign countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan, we can afford to do the same here at home.”
68% of voters nationwide say that the United States needs to make investments to build up our infrastructure
to compete with foreign countries that are doing so.

Carbon tax, oil companies, alternatives:

Yale Project on Climate Change Communication and the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication, November, 2011:

90 percent of Americans say developing sources of clean energy should be a very high (30%), high (35%), or medium (25%) priority for the president and Congress, including 82 percent of registered Republicans, 91 percent of Independents, and 97 percent of Democrats.
65 percent of Americans support a revenue neutral carbon tax that would “help create jobs and decrease pollution,” including majorities of registered Republicans (51%), Independents (69%), and Democrats (77%).
Likewise, 60 percent of Americans support a $10 per ton carbon tax if the revenue were used to reduce federal income taxes, even when told this would “slightly increase the cost of many things you buy, including food, clothing, and electricity.” This policy is supported by 48 percent of registered Republicans, 50 percent of Independents, and 74 percent of Democrats.
49 percent of Americans support a revenue neutral carbon tax if the revenue was instead returned to each American family equally as an annual check. Only 44 percent support this policy if the revenues were instead used to pay down the national debt.
69 percent of Americans oppose federal subsidies to the fossil fuel industry, including 67 percent of registered Republicans, 80 percent of Independents, and 68 percent of Democrats.
54 percent of Americans oppose subsidies to the ethanol industry to make fuel from corn, including 56 percent of registered Republicans, 65 percent of Independents, and 49 percent of Democrats.
85 percent of Americans (including 76% of registered Republicans, 83% of Independents, and 90% of Democrats) say that protecting the environment either improves economic growth and provides new jobs (54%), or has no effect (31%). Only 15 percent say environmental protection reduces economic growth and costs jobs.

Taxes:

Hart Research, February 2013:

66% say that the richest 2% should pay more in taxes. 64% say large corporations should pay more in taxes.
Only 28% of voters believe that the fiscal cliff bill passed on New Year’s Day raised taxes on the rich enough, while more than twice as many (59%) say that we still need to do more.
66% say close loopholes and limit deductions for wealthy individuals to reduce the budget deficit and make public investments. 23% want to reduce tax rates.

TIPP/Investor’s Business Daily Poll, April, 2012:

51% say tax capital gains same rate as income vs 35% say keep current low rate.

Rasmussen (!), November 2012:

57 % of voters say they agree with the president’s proposal to raise taxes on those making more than $250,000 per year. 35% oppose that move.

Quinnipiac University, December 2012:

65% of voters back increased taxes for Americans making more than $250,000 a year, 31 percent oppose.
Voters said a “no-taxes” pledge isn’t a good idea, 85-10 percent.

Also

Voters overwhelmingly oppose cutting Medicaid spending, 70-25 percent.
Voters oppose gradually raising the Medicare eligibility age, 51-44 percent.

Jobs:

Gallup, November 2012:

95% say restoring the job market is a top priority.

Public Policy Polling, November 2012:

49 % say President Obama’s mandate following his reelection is to focus on jobs. 22% say the president’s mandate involved reducing the debt.
36% said that the president was tasked with striking a compromise with congressional Republicans.

Assist those in need:

Food Action and Research Center, various polls:

“The opposition to cutting food stamps crossed party lines: 92 percent of Democrats, 74 percent of Independents, and 63 percent of Republicans say this is the wrong way to reduce spending.” this amounts to 72% of all voters who think food stamps are a positive thing for the country
“Only nine percent of those polled said they would be more likely to support a candidate who favors cutting funds for the food stamp program; half said they would be less likely.”
“Opposition to food stamp cuts is even more overwhelming than in polling data FRAC released in November 2010, when 71 percent said it was the wrong way to cut spending.”
“Voters are broadly concerned about the nation’s hunger problem: 81 percent say that low-income families and children not being able to afford enough food to eat is a serious problem.”

Hart Research for AFL-CIO. November 7, 2012.

88% of respondents favor allowing Medicare to negotiate drug policies.

Other:

Kaiser Family Foundation, January 2013:

61% of Americans are not willing to see any cuts to public education.
Only 21% of Americans favor major reductions in Unemployment insurance

Gallup, December 2010:

66% of Americans supported the extension of unemployment insurance in 2010
http://ourfuture.org/20130315/back-to-work-budget-vs-ryanrepublican-budget-which-reflects-polls-and-election-results

[liberal_at_heart]

97. good one.

[PDittie]

11. I don't think he'd be running as a Democrat.

So does that cue up the Nader Haters if Clinton were to lose?

(I personally don't think Clinton can lose... and I especially think this is true if she selects a Latino from Texas as a running mate.)

[warrenswil]

13. Potentially great idea

If a presidential campaign gives him a platform for his views, it would be a great idea.
He might even move the Democrats back to a centrist position.
Sanders is the most outspoken representative of progressives in Congress.
He would get my vote.

[Proud Public Servant]

14. See, here's the thing

Bernie's awesome, but he's in his 70s and not even a Dem

Elizabeth Warren's awesome, but she says she's not running and I believe her (I also think she'd really struggle as a national candidate, but that's beside the point).

Howard Dean and Al Gore I have mixed feelings about (Dean's now a lobbyist; Gore -- and people always forget this -- was a founding member of the DLC and the annoited DLC candidate in 1988), but they've run and lost and don't have Nixon's deal with Satan so they're done.

If we're serious about wanting to see a progressive candidate in 2016, we have to identify a serious potential candidate. Which brings me to the question: who are the viable progressives -- progressive senators or governor who aren't of an age to collect full social security benefits? Personally, I'm partial to Sherrod Brown, but I'm not even sure who else we've got. Martin O'Malley, I guess, but he's got zero charisma. Who else?

[cali]

19. now here's the thing: Bernie should he run isn't running to win but to push issues

I love Sherrod Brown and I'd love to see him run.

[VanillaRhapsody]

21. can he beat Chris Christie?

doubtful.

[Proud Public Servant]

23. Who, Brown?

Yeah, pretty easily.

[VanillaRhapsody]

32. Not name recognition much further than the DU forum.

that won't bode well against Christie.

[Proud Public Servant]

41. That's such nonsense

You keep trumpeting this bizarre myth of Christie the Unstoppable all over DU, all in the name of making sure we run and hide under Hillary's skirt.

Here's what I would challenge you to do: look at a map of our 2012 Electoral College victory. Now tell me which of those blue states Christie -- a blustering bully with a ton of baggage and deeply unpopular conservtive positions -- is going to turn red. Maybe Florida, because you never know what's going to happen down there. But otherwise? It ain't happening.

And as for name recognition, you might want to remember how little name recognition another senator had a few years back, right before Hillary's inevitability died the first time.

[VanillaRhapsody]

49. Christie is just my stand in for a Republican at the moment...

it works better to actually say against WHAT politician.

[Proud Public Servant]

53. So you're proposing

That with the GOP's approval levels at world-historic lows; with their base shrinking, aging and dying; with our demographics growing across the board; and with our having just swept executive offices in Virginia, a bellweather state that used to be a GOP stronghold -- that in spite of all of that, we need to be very, very worried that a GOP candidate will emerge who can move multiple Dem states to the GOP column, and that there's only one politician in the whole Democratic party who can keep that from happening.

Alllllrighty then...

[VanillaRhapsody]

72. You actually want to bring up Virginia? Remind me....who did they elect as Governor?

Oh yeah...that guy

[Proud Public Servant]

88. Yup, way to dodge the issue

It's astonishing -- or maybe it isn't -- how many substance-free posts you can make in "support" of your substance-free cause.

[VanillaRhapsody]

90. keep telling yourself that buddy!

[cali]

28. do you have a problem grasping a simple declarative sentence?

If he runs, he's running to push what he considers vital issues. NOT TO WIN THE WHITE HOUSE. He's said as much. He explains what those issues are in the video in this thread.

This isn't rocket science. He wants to influence the debate in the dem primaries.

His ability to beat Christie is totally not germane to that.

[VanillaRhapsody]

33. Do you not understand that is just symbolism?

I was talking about Sherrod Brown by the way...

[cali]

37. a) it's not just symbolism and b) you directed a post to me

asking if he could beat Christie. My post was about Bernie, ergo any reasonable person would assume that you were referring to Bernie.

[VanillaRhapsody]

40. And he cannot beat Chris Christie either....

not going to happen.

[cali]

44. and you know that how? Oh, that's right, you fucking well don't.

Yes, I think Sherrod Brown could beat Christie.

and we'll need a candidate because hillary is going to be defeated AGAIN.

[VanillaRhapsody]

46. because I am a realist.

[jeff47]

55. You declared Clinton a liberal. That's not being a realist. (nt)

[VanillaRhapsody]

59. No I didn't....she called herself a Progressive...

sorry to burst your bubble...

She IS a Democrat and this is a Democratic Forum last I checked.

Not into that Purging stuff that the Teabaggers are fond of.

[jeff47]

60. If I call myself Santa, does that make it true?

She can call herself anything she wants. The problem is a "realist" would look at her record and notice it's not liberal at all.

Not into that Purging stuff that the Teabaggers are fond of.

Which is why you have post after post after post after post after post after post after post after post after post after post after post after post after post after post after post after post after post after post after post after post after post after post after post after post after post after post after post after post after post after post after post after post after post after post after post after post after post after post after post after post after post after post after post after post after post after post after post after post after post after post after post after post after post after post after post after post after post after post after post after post after post after post after post after post where you insist that Hillary Clinton is the only viable candidate for 2016, and we all must line up behind her RIGHT NOW.

Uh-huh.

[VanillaRhapsody]

61. She called herself that before anyone on DU identified themselves with the moniker..

Right now she is...and has the best chance to win against Chris Christie...why do I say that you might ask young whippersnapper...

Because in exit polls where Christie's floor was 61% she won against him by 6 points IN HIS HOME STATE
on the same day he won by a landslide...

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnns-john-king-reports-hillary-clintons-slight-6-point-edge-over-christie-in-nj-exit-polls/

[jeff47]

67. So she can incinerate a paper tiger. Ooooooo.

Christie will not be the Republican candidate. He is EXTREMELY unpopular in the South and the West. And the Republicans just came off a "heartbreaking" loss with a different Northeastern governor candidate. Christie can't win the primary.

Who's going to? Hell if I know. 2016 is way too far away to make a decent prediction. Remember how Jindal was supposed to beat Obama in 2012? How'd that go again? Remember how Clinton was supposed to beat Obama in 2008? How'd that go again?

Why are you lining up behind an inevitability strategy again? It's a terrible political strategy once you have already lost. If this represents the quality of the campaign Clinton will run in 2016, then it demonstrates she should not receive the nomination.

[VanillaRhapsody]

69. Or any Republican....

I am lining up behind whoever gets the Dem nomination. At this time...it is Hillary's for the asking...capice?

[jeff47]

75. So, were you lying when you said you were against "purging"

or are you going to continue to make post after post insisting that we all must line up behind Clinton?

[VanillaRhapsody]

76. I am talking about people not candidates...try to keep up...

The candidate purge comes with the primaries....and for the moment the strong front runner is Hillary Rodham Clinton comprende?

I post on a Democratic Forum...

[jeff47]

79. And you are trying to purge discussion of any other candidates.

So, were you lying about not liking purges?

I post on a Democratic Forum...

Which means we're free to discuss candidates other than Hillary Clinton. Because it's a Democratic form, and not a Clinton forum. (Insert dumb-ass usage of foreign word meaning "understand" here)

[VanillaRhapsody]

83. I am supporting the Democratic front runner

by far....it is practically hers for the asking.

[jeff47]

106. If there are no announced candidates, there are no front runners.

And you are trying to shut down any discussion about alternative candidates.

[D23MIURG23]

70. Can Hillary?

Its possible, but in either case we don't actually know until the vote is taken. Particularly this far out from an election when there is no polling data worth taking seriously, there is no reason to worry about "electability".

[grahamhgreen]

110. 100% yes:)

[geardaddy]

45. Here's a few I can think of

Franken? Feingold?

[dreamnightwind]

95. I wouldn't be too sure about that

"Elizabeth Warren's awesome, but she says she's not running and I believe her (I also think she'd really struggle as a national candidate, but that's beside the point). "

She will run if she thinks it is the best way to fight for the issues she believes in. I know of no statements she has made about running that she couldn't change her mind on, have any links for her strongest denial? Just curious.

I think she just might run, and if she does, I think she would play very well nationally. She's a midwesterner (born in Oklahoma, grew up in Texas) and now a Senator in New England, also a woman, and a proven fighter for the 99% who will speak truth to power, seems like those factors cover a lot of ground.

Personally I think this country badly needs President Warren.

[silvershadow]

22. If he does enter the race, I will have to change my tagline graphic.

[MFM008]

27. hello election 2000.

ok Bernie, make it easy for the gop to waltz into the white house. Then we get stuck with a president CRUZ.
For the love of mike Bernie put this idea to bed, dont be Ralph Nader.

[cali]

29. oh bullshit. you are clueless about bernie. he would never play that role

he'd run to push the debate and almost certainly drop out if he felt he posed a threat to the dem nominee winning.




And yes, I know my Senator.

[VanillaRhapsody]

34. EXACTLY!

[cali]

38. bzzzt fail again. Bernie is my Senator. Before that he was my rep.

I know the guy. I know to a certainty that he would never play spoiler.

You know nothing about him.

[VanillaRhapsody]

66. When did I say I did?

I have said all along he won't win...will he run? How the F should I know?

[cali]

73. sigh. you have trouble understanding...

virtually anything.

it's sad.

[liberal_at_heart]

30. That is great news.

[ReRe]

47. Puleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeezzzzze, Sen Sanders!

Please run. As a Democrat. So you will be able to be present at all Democratic debates. Bernie has nerves of steel and a mountain of conviction. No one will be able to intimidate him or ruffle his tail feathers.
This Party needs to be dragged back toward the MIDDLE or hopefully to the LEFT! Go Bernie!

[VanillaRhapsody]

50. The Middle you say...

hmmmm

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/hillary_clinton/300022

[jeff47]

51. So how much do you get paid per post?

or is it an hourly gig?

[djean111]

56. Ha! I was thinking that, too.

Pretty much all I am getting from the relentless Hillary Hype is that I am seriously thinking I may not be what is nowadays a democrat. The hype is certainly not going to convince me to join the Hillary BFF Club, that's for sure.

Plus dismissing issues as "purist" and pretty much irrelevant, because the only thing politics is about is WINNING, no matter what the fuck the elected one does, is starting to sicken me.

Oh, and the twisting of people saying they won't vote for Hillary in a primary into people saying they won't for her in the general election is getting tiresome, too. If the Hillary word bath is designed to discourage people from supporting other possible candidates, or designed to win people over, it is a massive massive fail. I don't read the put-downs and sneering of some Hillary cheerleaders as a group I want to associate with.

And, again, pathetic how polls and numbers have replaced issues entirely. Issues, any issues, are now called unicorns or ponies. Fuck that.

[jeff47]

58. I don't worry 'bout her too much

If this is actually an organized effort, she's going to lose badly. Inevitability was her schtick in 2008, and it failed. "Inevitable this time!" is not going to work well. It requires admitting that your central premise - inevitability - is utterly wrong.

If it isn't an organized effort, then it's about as dangerous as any other unorganized effort. The question becomes why "natural" supporters would all suddenly start posting this kind of stuff at the same time.

[idwiyo]

52. k&r

[Phlem]

81. I would so vote for him over Hillary

We need to start righting some wrongs, and it is long time to rip the bandage that is the 3rd way off our wound and let it heal.

-p

[tavalon]

85. Okay, so what happens here?

Ostensibly we are to support the Democrats, but there isn't a democrat, with the exception of Warren who I would support over Bernie. I won't be following the rules if he runs.

[Rowdyboy]

89. As a Democrat, I would seriously consider him; as an Independant, I'd remember Nader

and the hellish nightmare he gave us by his meaningless "statement" in 2000.

Bernie's not going to run though because he cares too much about the country.

[quinnox]

94. Well, that would certainly make things interesting!

Recommended

[gopiscrap]

101. YES!!!

[Romulox]

113. DU's "centrists" hate Bernie more than any Republican. Why? He's an actual threat to their power.

[brooklynite]

118. Please point out any posting that exhibits hatred of Bernie Sanders...

...or are factual assessments of his ability to actually get elected considered out of bounds?

[Romulox]

119. Check out the *other* thread on this subject for some very anxious "centrists". nt

[brooklynite]

120. ...which you couldn't be bothered to provide a link to?

I have no idea which thread you're talking about.

[Union Scribe]

130. 'He can't win' is not a "factual assessment"

It's an opinion.

[brooklynite]

131. Its an opinion based on the assessment of the writer...and still isn't hatred...

[treestar]

132. I don't think there are any such posters

What power? Bernie running for President is a threat to nobody. It'd be like Kucinich's run.

[man4allcats]

125. If Bernie runs, I will vote for him in the primaries.

I'm tired of voting for the party. For once I want to vote on principle. If Hillary wants my vote, she will have to beat Bernie there. If she does, I will vote for her not because I consider her progressive but rather because she has the courage, in these times, to call herself a Democrat instead of a Republican. I guess I'm old enough to hope that still means something. If, however, Bernie wins the nomination, he will get my wholehearted support with no regrets. It's time for America to do the right thing. If it's not willing to do that, then maybe it's time for America to go to hell instead. All actions have consequences - even America's actions.

[JDPriestly]

126. Good News!

Would he be considered a Democrat or an independent?

I think he should change to be a Democrat so that he can debate Democrats.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

148. He could win if Democrats didn't split the vote by voting for moderates.

[woo me with science]

155. kick