Let's establish this: Bernie will not be a spoiler if he runs for President: He says so here:

[cali]

<snip>

Sanders said he will decide sometime later whether to launch a presidential campaign. Already he envisions constraints. He will not be a spoiler by running an independent candidacy that would drain votes from the Democratic nominee. “If I chose to run . . . and if my candidacy were to take off, I do not want to be in a position to elect some right-wing Republican,” he said.

Some people believe Sanders has little to lose in such a campaign. Perhaps. When asked if he is concerned about the prospect of Clinton claiming the nomination without being challenged, he said, “It’s not just acclamation for Hillary, it’s that there are millions and millions of people out there — I see them every day — who are hurting, who are struggling. . . . Somebody has got to defend those people.”

<snip>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bernie-sanders-has-questions-about-clinton/2014/05/17/95c2571e-dd33-11e3-8009-71de85b9c527_story.html

So PLEASE, Hillary backers, stop with the nonsense about him running as an independent. I've repeatedly informed you guys that that won't happen and those of you with no knowledge of Bernie who keep insisting that he'd never run as a dem and would be a spoiler, are talking through your.... hats.

Now that we've established that he won't be a spoiler, wouldn't it be nice if we discussed issues?

[RobertEarl]

1. Looking forward to the debates

Sanders is an exceptional person. A person who should be front and center in the discussion about how to make this a more perfect union.

I am sure Hillary would welcome that debate.

[cali]

2. I concur. And certainly his candidacy as a dem has no downside

for democrats.

[thelordofhell]

3. Clinton/Sanders 2016

Sounds obvious to me........

[billhicks76]

12. Then You Need To Educate Yourself

The Wall St War Machine wants Clinton or Bush again in 2016 and sees little difference between the two. The Clintons hijacked our party as far as I'm concerned and the will spoil freedom, democracy and equality. They had no problem with 2 million Americans in jail. Does that mean anything to anyone here or do we close our eyes to this elephant in the room because we aren't in there with them? Warren for President. I will never vote for a Clinton or a Bush.

[stevenleser]

39. You argued against points that person never raised. Both Warren and Sanders are pragmatists.

Sanders voted for ACA even though he and many of us would rather have had Single Payer http://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/27110/bernie-sanders/38/health-and-health-care#.U3osGfldWSo . There are a lot of similar votes like that from him. Warren supports Hillary's candidacy.

Warren has already said she wants neither spot on the national ticket. But I would bet that Sanders would take the VP spot if offered and I for one would think it would be a good idea from a number of perspectives. I've already said as a Hillary supporter that I welcome Sanders into the race for the Democratic nomination. I think it would be a plus for both of them. And Sanders as a VP would be an excellent attack dog on the Republican ticket and woe to whatever Republican VP nominee would have to face him in the debate.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

41. "Warren has already said she wants neither spot on the national ticket."

Citation please.

Thank you.

[stevenleser]

48. There are so many to choose from. Here are a couple...

"I am not running for President and I will serve out my term (in the senate)" http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/12/04/elizabeth-warren-i-am-not-running-for-president/

[billhicks76]

46. Like I Said

I've learned enough now in my years to never allow a Clinton or Bush in the Oval Office again. They feigned opposition in the 90s. That means they lied. Bush Sr publicly called Bill his 5th son often after GW won in 2000 and they played golf countless times together. Clinton was A Bush Se lackey who made sure Bush wasn't investigated for IranContra and other crimes any further in '93. And this was to preserve an agreed upon trade off to his son in 2000 complete with most of Bush Sr's mafia-like war mongering cabal. I was excited for Obama at first but when he flipflopped on Telecom Immunity and the even the filibuster he promised I knew they got to him too. He basically flip-flopped on all his promises and it was evident with that first one months before the 2008 election. I recall Jerry Brown in '92 at a PBS roundtable primary debate where he had threw throw a photo on the screen of Sam Nunn and Bill "inspecting" a prison work camp. It looked racist because it was...all black men in striped fatigues and chained together in a line as those two charlatans inspected them in behalf of the businesses that were getting cheap slave labor as a result of a ramped up war on marijuana and other substances. When this photo was thrown up Bill turned to Jerry as his face turned beet red and he threatened him. "Jerry...you don't know what you're messing with...I would be careful if I was you." I remember it clearly. I'll bet Bill was allowing Bush to do thinks in Arkansas for the Contras and the supply lines of guns and drugs. If you think I will ever vote for either of those two families again then you are mistaken. I hope you wise up.

[billhicks76]

47. Oh Yeah

VP doesn't matter unless you're in charge like they let Cheney do. Remember when Cheney refused to let Bush testify alone (even not under oath) before the 911 committee and held his hand as he whispered answers in his ear. How was that ever allowed by our media??? I'll tell you how....FEAR. Fear of Cheney and Bush Sr. That's why we never had a real 911 investigation. But we need a Benghazi one? Our leaders in politics and media have failed us out of greed and fear. Sanders as President is ok but VP? He would be neutered and would never do it.

[Scuba]

21. About as likely as Romney running with Noam Chomsky.

[cali]

4. kick for those (and there are lots of them here) who have been insisting that bernie will be a

spoiler and will never run as a dem.

[merrily]

5. Anyone who meets the requirements of Article II has a right to run for President.

The Framers had a lot of reasons for writing the Constitution as they did, some admirable, some horrible. But, I think their failure to enshrine any one point of view in Article II was a good thing.

I don't know where Democrats got the idea that they have some God given right not to be challenged from the left. Republicans have had several third parties challenging them from the right for years.

I don't recall many Democratic politicians complaining about Ross Perot siphoning votes from Poppy and Dole. In fact, I don't even recall Republican politicians complaining about it, even though Perot did a lot better than Nader in terms of raw votes.

Yes I am sorry we got Bush. But, I am also sorry that Democratic pundits say, The left has nowhere else to go. And Obama could have remedied a lot of what Bush did. But, incentive for Democrats to remedy what Republican Presidents did diminishes when voters insist on making it true for Democrats that the left has nowhere else to go.

[ecstatic]

6. I'm with Sanders: don't hand election to a right wing republican

just to prove a point. Women have been set back decades in many states around the country. Important laws pertaining to civil rights have been reversed by a very right wing supreme court. I have a really hard time believing the sincerity of anyone who would advocate splitting the left and allowing a Rand Paul or Paul Ryan to win. An all or nothing attitude could set the country back 100 years. Is it worth it? Maybe if you're a rich white male with nothing to lose either way...

BTW, of course democrats didn't complain when Perot took votes from Bush I. Why would anyone supporting the democratic candidate complain about the republican vote being split?

[merrily]

7. "All or nothing" is not what my post advocated. Neither is "just to prove a point."

[merrily]

9. PS. While cultural issues are important, a political party is about more than

cultural issues. Or it should be, anyway.

Republicans defined cultural issues as the appropriate battleground for a political party. Now, they've become almost the only real battleground for politics. I reject that. I also reject that having only Democrats and Republicans duke-ing it out (or pretending to) no matter what, is best for the long term welfare of the country and the people in it. And that is my only interest. If I were confident of that, both those parties could get fat and happy, or go to hell and it would not matter to me, either way.

[Adrahil]

15. I think Democrats beating Republicans IS In the best interest of the nation.

That's why I'm posting at a the DEMOCRATIC underground.

[VanillaRhapsody]

19. Democrats beating Republicans is the whole point behind Democratic Underground

after all this time....and having been elected BY his constituents under his current party affiliation....but Bernie will KICK them to the curb for a long shot at becoming President. Right....that sounds JUST like something Bernie Sanders would do....

[cali]

20. how the heck is Bernie kicking anyone to the curb??? do tell, vanilla.

He sure the hell has never kicked a dem to the curb in his runs for the House or Senate. Vermont DEMOCRATS (get that?) nominated and elected him. Dems in the House and Senate have endorsed him repeatedly- including current leadership. And he spells it out in this article that he has NO INTENTION OF BEING A SPOILER. Why right wing democrats such as yourself insist on twisting it to make it falsely appear he's a spoiler a la Nader, is not only puzzling, vanilla, it's absent basic (or any other kind of) honesty.

To reiterate, vanilla: BERNIE RUNNING AS A DEMOCRAT DOES NOT KICK ANYONE TO THE CURB.

Please desist in making false claims.

[VanillaRhapsody]

22. HIS constituents voted FOR him as an Independent....you know actual people...

Do go on about his constituents.....who elect Bernie year after year with his current party affiliation....

[cali]

25. I am a constituent. I know VT politics better than you, Vanilla.

He is supported overwhelmingly by VT dems. Sorry, but that's a fact. You know what a fact is, right?

In 2012 Bernie was re-elected with 71% of the vote and endorsed by Harry Reid, Charles Schumer and the VT Democratic Party.

[VanillaRhapsody]

26. so?

Bernie ran as an Independent to get elected by them....switching party affiliations would be rejecting them....Not Bernie's wheelhouse..

[cali]

28. how the heck are YOU qualified to speak for us VT dems? Clue: You are NOT.

Not a single VT supporter of Bernie's that I know- and I know a lot- feels that he'd be "rejecting them" by registering as a dem and running for president?

[VanillaRhapsody]

29. So only a single consituent can speak for Bernie?

I couldn't possibly know that switching parties after being elected....pisses off those that elected you. I dont need to be one to know THAT do I>

[cali]

27. his constituents are overwhelmingly democrats, dear.

why make claims about something you know so vanishingly little about?

Oh, and you "forgot" to explain how he's kicked anyone to the curb or would do so by running as a dem for President.

Do explain that.

[VanillaRhapsody]

30. His consituents didn't vote FOR a Democrat did they "dear"?

I know ^^^ that much....which is hardly "vanishing" "dear"!

dear me!

[cali]

31. Uh, nilla, that wasn't my claim, was it?

And as he's run unopposed for years, why would you care? do tell. and don't forget to explain how he's kicked any dem to the curb, dear.

[VanillaRhapsody]

33. You just changed subjects dear...

two conversations at once does get confusing bless your heart

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

34. I think Democrats BEING Democrats is in the best interests of the nation.

Democrats who are unashamedly Democrats are both the key to electoral victories and to regaining a working government. When voters see that their officeholders actually believe in the Democratic party platform, and don't merely give it lipservice, they're enthused to vote, to phone bank, to pound pavement.

[struggle4progress]

8. Sanders would be 75 on election day 2016, old than Reagan was at his second inauguration;

halfway through his first term, he'd be older than Reagan was when Reagan finally left the White House

The graying of the presidents
Some researchers believe Oval Office stress accelerates aging process
By Stephen Smith
Globe Staff / January 4, 2009

... Dr. Michael Roizen, who has written extensively on aging, said a formula he helped develop suggests that for every year in office, the average president ages two years.

"It doesn't matter if they're Democrats or Republicans, it doesn't matter if they've been athletes or not beforehand, it doesn't matter if they were smokers or not," said Roizen, chief wellness officer at the Cleveland Clinic. "For eight years in office, they age 16 years."

Roizen's analysis, which examines presidents from Theodore Roosevelt forward, relies on medical documents presidents made available before being elected and details from annual checkups while in office. It includes medical factors such as blood pressure and weight and behaviors such as smoking and exercise ...

[merrily]

10. Hillary will be 69 on election day 2016. Warren will be 67 and Sanders will be 75.

So, that seems to be where Democrats are headed. I guess they are confident of the youth vote.

But only one of them has been anointed.

What's the significance of age on election day, though? Are we worried about people possibly being too old to fully enjoy their election night victory celebration? Isn't the time in office more relevant? Shouldn't we be looking at Inauguration Day and the next 4 to 8 years following Inauguration?

On Election Day 2008, McCain was 72 and Democrats, at least the non-politician Democrats, couldn't stop with the old jokes. Extrapolating from that, I assume that Democrats believe that something awful happens to people between the ages of 69 and 72.

But, if Hillary is President, she will still be in office when she is 72, barring an Act of God. I assume Democrats would want to see her win again in 2020, as opposed to having her lose the incumbent edge for the Party. If so, that would make her 73 by the time she leaves office.

We all know that it's possible for someone 73 to outperform (physically, anyway) someone who is 45. Maybe in reflexes and mental acuity as well. But we all know that is not true of most of the population. And when it is true, it tends to be truest of people who exercise physically a lot and watch their nutrition and general health like a momma bear watching someone creeping up on her baby.

But, both Democrats and Republicans seem to be willing to buck the odds.

BTW, I think Tsongas provided medical records. Not all of them, though. Someone I know (and trust) whose wife worked for the hospital told me that his wife had those locked in her office. He did not tell me what they said. I do not know if he knew. I don't even know if his wife read the records herself. I am ashamed to admit that I did not want to know any of those things, let alone what the records said. ) But, history tells us that Tsongas would not have been at peak for the 8 years following his election, if he had been elected.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

35. I'm not a Hillary fan

but, biologically speaking, males lose frontal lobe brain cells faster than females as they age. The same cells that control our ability to make sound decisions. From a simple biological standpoint, if we're going to elect older people to office, statistically we'd probably be better off electing more females and fewer males... Seeing all the old goofballs in Congress, it seems like an even better idea...

[cali]

36. that isn't of course, universallyn true- and of course some people have way more petit cels gris

than others.

I have a friend who is now 75. Still one of the smartest people I've ever known who makes solid decisions and is still performing and teaching and choreographing all over the world.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

37. Of course. We all age differently

and the biosciences are still in their infancy when it comes to figuring out how best to keep our bodies in tiptop shape. That's why I said 'statistically'. And I stand by my assertion that there are a lot of goofballs in Congress

[struggle4progress]

40. If Clinton were elected, she'd be older on her first inauguration day than Reagan was on his

There's not a chance she'll run; she has said she won't

There's not a chance Warren will run; she's also said she won't

Sanders might run, but there's not a chance he'll get very far in primary season

[cali]

14. you really are desperate for him not to run. it's so silly.

[struggle4progress]

45. I oppose wasting people's time with non-serious campaigns

[kelliekat44]

11. How about a Clinton/Sanders ticket? nt

[djean111]

18. I believe that would just marginalize Sanders. Same with a Clinton/Warren ticket.

[joshcryer]

13. Anyone know the latest he can change his party?

[cali]

16. no, but I'm sure he has plenty of time and that he is aware of dates like that

[joshcryer]

17. No, doubt. Just looking for an indicator.

If we know the date we can know whether he intends to run or not.

[Jim Lane]

42. It probably varies by state.

An additional complication is that, in at least some states, Sanders wouldn't actually be the candidate. Unlike the primary for, say, U.S. Senator, a state's presidential primary doesn't pick a nominee for President. It picks delegates to the convention. It might be (warning: wild speculation ahead) that, in some states, a slate of registered Democrats pledged to support Sanders could run for those delegate slots regardless of Sanders's party affiliation.

[pipoman]

23. worrying about spoilers is anti-democratic

If we are ever going to have actual change, as opposed to lightly veiled corporate business as usual, there has to be viable opposition to business as usual.

[Jefferson23]

24. I'm not sure if enough Democrats understand that in the Senate Berie is respected by both sides.

No one should write him off. He recently answered a question on FreeSpeech TV, a caller
asked him about third party, he clearly stated, third party is a very difficult undertaking.

I think that said it all.

[Bjorn Against]

32. Agreed, Bernie is well aware of the differences between Vermont races and the Presidency

[cali]

38. kick for information value

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

43. It's up to the politicians to attract votes. If they want to get the votes of the left, move left.

If there's another candidate more to the left than they are, don't blame the voters for voting for him/her.

[warrprayer]

44. kick