General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums'Run, Bernie, Run': Survey Shows Huge Support for Sen. Sanders as Progressive Presidential Candidate
More than 80 percent hope Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) will bring his agenda items and energy to 2016 contest; Most want challenge from within Democratic Party- Jon Queally, staff writer
"If Bernie runs, it looks like the progressive left flank is ready to mobilize on his behalf.
Recent signals by Vermont's Independent Senator Bernie Sanders that he would consider a run for president in 2016 in order to "take on Wall Street, address the collapse of the middle class, tackle the spread of poverty... and address global warming," perked the ears of progressives who look out at the Democratic Party and see no other candidateespecially the presumed frontrunner Hillary Clintonlikely to speak for them on a core set of issues.
And now, a survey prompted by Sanders' comments shows that among those who closely identify as "progressive" support for his candidacy is at more than 80 percent.
Conducted by RootsAction.orga progressive online activism, advocacy and lobbying organizationthe survey asked the group's members to offer their opinion on a Sanders run for the nation's highest office.
Asked if he should run, 81 percent said 'Yes.' Only 9 percent said 'No,' and the remaining 10 percent were unsure."
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/12/23-0
It's all I want for Christmas. Happy Holidays All!
PDittie
(8,322 posts)He's an independent who caucuses with the Dems in the Senate, and IIRC (no time for Googling at the moment) is a self-identified socialist.
Yet most respondents to this poll want him to run in the D primary. Isn't that incongruent?
BelgianMadCow
(5,379 posts)Why would being a socialist and a democrat be incongruent?
They're only the second biggest fraction in the European parliament
PDittie
(8,322 posts)Even here in Houston, Texas there's a Meetup group, weekly.
It's not my understanding the democratic socialists and the US Democratic party are compatible (based on first hand experience). And what does the status of those parties in Europe have to do with whether Bernie Sanders runs (as a Democrat or not)?
This feels like an unnecessary digression, answering my polite question with two questions that appear as non sequiturs to me.
BelgianMadCow
(5,379 posts)My point was about democrat (lowercase) and socialist. My bad, sorry for the snark.
Now, whether Democrat and socialist go together, I'm not the best judge of that. I'll bow out.
PDittie
(8,322 posts)Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)have aligned themselves with the Democratic Party as the only viable political entity that comes even close to representing their values.
And, in all honesty, I really ought to replace the "their" and "they" and "themselves" in what I wrote with "our" and "us" and "ourselves."
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)issue SHOULD be congruent with the Democratic Party, are not any longer. The Dem Party SHOULD be pushing for the issues he stands up for, representing the people, rather than Corporate America.
He definitely speaks for Democrats when few in the Party Leadership are currently doing so.
He also speaks for left leaning Independents and even for some Conservatives who are not happy with the war mongering and Wall St corruption.
So it's no surprise at all that he resonates with Democrats especially.
PDittie
(8,322 posts)After hearing Al From and other Third Wayers talk about their beliefs -- and their (relative to mine, yours, and others like us) control over Democratic Party developments with regard to presidential nominations...
... well, I just don't see Bernie going for that. I could be wrong.
There's a greater chance Elizabeth Warren fits into that coat than Sanders. But she isn't going to run against Hillary. Sanders might challenge Clinton in a party primary or two, but I would be surprised if he did so after, say, New Hampshire. JMHO.
A more orthodox Democrat, like O'Malley or Schweitzer, stands a better chance of carrying that torch than Sanders. He's more to the left than Kucinich (and there is NOTHING wrong with that).
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)someone the party chooses, but if it looks like Hillary is not going to win, due to the fact that many Dems will no longer support any candidate that has a record of, eg, voting for Bush policies such as the Iraq War and go with someone has a better chance of getting the votes.
As for Bernie, they could ask him to run on the Dem ticket. But they would have to agree with him on the issues and they do not obviously.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)I'm tired of this sensible woodchuck ideal of "meeting in the middle with crazy people," personally. The politicla middle is false, even if it were real, splitting hte difference doesn't win votes, having principles does.
And that's why the Republicans continue to win stuff - because as poisonous as their ideals are, they still stand for them, while democrats are mostly going "Uhm, hey, can we talk about that?"
I want a candidate who'll put it out like Chris Rock did in Head of State
That. Shit. Is. WRONG!"
And to be frank at this point I don't give a flying fuck if they have a stamp of approval on their ass from the party heads or not.
polichick
(37,152 posts)with a D behind their name.
Could it be that we have elected a bunch of con men and women with Ds behind their names?
Samantha
(9,314 posts)There is no party per se (that I know of) and so he is labeled by the Senate as an Independent.
Sam
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)adirondacker
(2,921 posts)Obviously if I did not think I had a reasonable chance to win I wouldnt run . . . It is not my intention to be some kind of spoiler and play the role of just draining votes away to allow my voice to be heard.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)I would volunteer as much of my time as possible for him.
Beacool
(30,250 posts)It's like Ted Cruz being very popular with a poll ran by the Tea Party. It means squat at the national level. If the Democratic party has a death wish, they convince Bernie to run as a Democrat and make him the nominee. Let's see how many people vote for a 75 year old Socialist.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)as Bernie the 'Socialist Democrat' votes.
Young people too are emerging as not being loyal to any party and that is a growing demographic which polls show are not impressed by either party.
They are far more informed than previous generations and considering the future the status quo has prepared for them, they are far less likely to vote for a status quo candidate than their predecessors.
The real question is 'let's see how many Democrats will vote for Hillary. Times have changed, people have been badly affected by the policies of the last ten years and they are looking for a little Socialism rather than the old Corporate policies that have so devastated the working class.
Beacool
(30,250 posts)PDittie
(8,322 posts)... except everyone knows that Bernie won't actually ever be the nominee of the Dems, even if he does run as a Dem and even if he wins the Iowa caucuses, and then the New Hampshire and South Carolina primaries (if they aren't in that chronological order in 2014, I apologize).
Bernie would be running to make a debate point, and that's it. That point is worth making; it just may be that it is worth making in a stronger way with someone who represents a greater threat to Clinton as potential nominee. She has already lost the nomination once, to someone who was perceived to be to her left. It's not weird to think it could happen again.
My interpretation of Beacool's point is: Bernie has the right message... but is the wrong messenger.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)he's the wrong messenger? We just saw the poll of Progressive Dems, that shows he IS the right messenger.
PDittie
(8,322 posts)which may also not be accurate. Beacool might clarify.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)really a surprise, the most popular candidate among Progressive Dems, that is the base of the party without which they cannot win.
Beacool is expressing the minority opinion. However, having watched how these things work, we are likely to start seeing smear campaign tactics, subtle at first, against Sen Sanders in order to reduce his support among the Dem base.
Seeing this support for him has most likely already put those tactics into operation.
The problem is we have become so accustomed to this now it's not going to have the same impact it had on previous popular candidates among Dems. We've seen too much over the past several years and hopefully, IF they try to use those tactics again, they will not be as successful as they have in the past.
PDittie
(8,322 posts)Is Bernie a Democrat?
And maybe a better question based on what we have already covered here: If he decides to run as a Dem based on polling like this, is he still the best person to bear that standard?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)We had not say in that obviously. So between Hillary and Bernie, the answer is 'yes', Bernie is the best person to bear that standard. According to that poll which confirms what many of us are experiencing in the Real World when the subject comes up.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,234 posts)Online polls are notoriously flawed, and non-scientific. I mean, why not just cite a DU poll? It's just as reliable. Remember when Kucinich would win DU polls religiously? But on planet earth, he couldn't muster 1% in a primary? Same diff.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)candidates THEY chose, Kucinich eg, who was the most popular candidate during the early Bush years. WE didn't get to make the decision, a few Corporate tools have been making those decisions for us. But times have changed, MOST people especially the young, get their news from online sources.
If the people had had the power and had not been talked into supporting the least popular candidate at the time, this country would not be in the mess it is in right now. But times have changed, thankfully.
I bet if you could find one though, you would be posting a Corporate Media poll, if it said what you would like it to say. Their audience has shrunk so much since those days that no MSM can possibly reflect the views of the most informed citizens, which ARE those who are most likely to answer Online polls.
That is an overwhelming majority who support Sen. Sanders, most of them probably the young who are not susceptible to the Corporate Media.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,234 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)One of them being picking one of the least popular candidates to beat Bush with and yes, we failed, didn't we. He got a second term. Too bad the party didn't listen to the base and pick the most popular candidate.
Let's hope they don't make the same mistake again.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,234 posts)winter is coming
(11,785 posts)The contents are more important to me than the label.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)adirondacker
(2,921 posts)than the Tea Party candidates. ie Cuomo. It's all fun and games until you receive the screw like the teacher's union in NY, or the possible victims of the Pro Fracking Governor.
So let's play the association "game".
markpkessinger
(8,401 posts)Hmmm -- I remember a time not too long ago when many would have said something like, "Let's see how many people will vote for an unknown, African-American, first-term Senator with a foreign-sounding name." Just sayin'.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)irresponsible decision.
If we're going to be ageist about it, I would rather have the 75 yr old man who represents most Democrats on the issues that are important to them. A six year difference doesn't matter much to me.
If I were a Hillary supporter I would be talking about 'age, I would be trying to explain her vote on the Iraq War which lost her the last election. Ironic too since she thought at the time she cast that vote that it was the 'political' thing to do if you were going to run for President.
Not only was it a terrible decision made by someone who should have known Bush was lying, WE KNEW, but it was a terrible Political decision also. Surely she knew how opposted to that war the people whose votes she needed most, were.
I guess someone convinced her they would handle those 'liberals' and this way she might attract some crossover votes.
Anyone making such wrong decisions on such important issues should not be in a position of such power where they can make more.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Beacool
(30,250 posts)Vote for anyone you choose.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)adirondacker
(2,921 posts)Beacool
(30,250 posts)Really?
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)at the start of his Presidency?
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)Relative youth is no guarantee that a President will finish his term.
adirondacker
(2,921 posts)than any other surviving president. Besides, 74 is a spring chicken in VT.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)My perception is that Bernie would concentrate his candidacy on his vision for how things should be, not on attacking Hillary. If you watch him, he doesn't really attack people, he promotes ideas. I think that would only help Hillary when she becomes the nominee.
Having him on the national stage daily promoting Liberalism would be a huge plus, I think.
Beacool
(30,250 posts)I only know that these people they keep pushing over here will be a distraction, but not much more. I have no problem with Sanders as a senator, but I don't see how he will be a help when there are people who already think that Hillary is to the Left of Castro, let alone a more liberal candidate.
msongs
(67,413 posts)Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)hootinholler
(26,449 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)winter is coming
(11,785 posts)lostincalifornia
(3,639 posts)Democrat
Proud Public Servant
(2,097 posts)On the one hand, I love me some Bernie.
On the other hand, he's not a Democrat and has never been a Democrat; he'd be an interloper in a Democratic primary, though a somewhat popular one. But the Democratic primary is just that -- a primary of the Democratic Party. And he never joined the club.
That said, I really want to see a progressive challenge to Madame Inevitability -- but we've got other possibilities, even if Warren doesn't run.
lostincalifornia
(3,639 posts)Proud Public Servant
(2,097 posts)I'm not sure how I'd feel about him doing so. Plenty of progressives have chosen to build their careers within the party; Bernie chose not to. Not sure why I should now welcome him into our primaries.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)Proud Public Servant
(2,097 posts)I love Bernie, as I said; I'd just like to see the progressive wing of our party represented by someone who's actually IN our party. We have plenty of choices (as I've also said see post #41).
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)This is a genuine question because I really dig where Bernie is, but see him as the wrong messenger, first because of his age, and second because of his current (non-)party affiliation.
This said, I think Bernie could make a useful contribution in the Primaries by expanding the Overton Window to the left.
Proud Public Servant
(2,097 posts)Tier one are progressive candiates who could credibly vie for the nomination and be credible in a general election. They include: Elizabeth Warren (of course), Sherrod Brown, Martin O'Malley, Al Franken, Tom Udall, Kirsten Gillibrand, and perhaps Russ Feingold, and Howard Dean (though the kind of comeback Feingold or Dean would need to stage is more common in the GOP than in our own party). Maybe also Wyden and/or Merkley, but I don't know enough about them to be sure.
The second tier are symbolic candidates who would have very little chance in the primaries but be useful for keeping progressive ideas in play -- Overton window candidates, if you will. They include Alan Grayson and Keith Ellison; you could include Feingold and Dean here if you don't buy them as truly plausible candidates.
Special mention should probably be made Brian Schweitzer, who is a definite economic progressive but would rub progressives teh wrong way on some other issues, including guns. Like a lot of people, I suspect he will run even if it means running against Hillary; he'll come at her from the left and also from the perspecive of relative executive experience, and won't be easily shaken off.
JEB
(4,748 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Dems put up a real Progressive Candidate which could, and if they did, I suspect Bernie wouldn't run, or many Dems WILL vote for Sanders if he runs. The voters are not to blame if their party leaves them, the Party is to blame. They have time now to start answering to the people whose votes they have for too long taken for granted. That can only go on for so long before the 'taken for granted' decide not to be taken for granted anymore. It's happened before.
What we can do is tell them NOW that they can no longer take the 'left' for granted and make them understand that we mean it.
politichew
(230 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)adirondacker
(2,921 posts)btw I'm borrowing your button, thank you very much
WillyT
(72,631 posts)KinMd
(966 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)The American people align perfectly with Bernie on the issues. He would have a shocking amount of support. Shocking especially to Democratic Party status quo apologists.
That is why his possible candidacy is being poo pooed.
adirondacker
(2,921 posts)Republicans in their race to destroy the country..
otherone
(973 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Zorra
(27,670 posts)wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)Freddie Stubbs
(29,853 posts)adirondacker
(2,921 posts)Freddie Stubbs
(29,853 posts)gerogie2
(450 posts)He would just suck off votes like Ralph Nader did to Al gore in 2000.
anti partisan
(429 posts)Warren's probably more realistic though.
Warren/Sanders 2016? It's about time that we take on that "socialism" slur head-on and explain how socialist policy benefits the country. I'm convinced that it'd be a winning argument too.