If he ran as a Democrat, I would have to think the same thing would happen that happened in 2016. The Democratic Party does not like his views and goals, and I hope he doesn’t plan on changing those things for them. Also, the Democrats seem to be positioning themselves to run on an extremely feminist platform, and Bernie mostly runs on economic issues. His issues would help the party, but I don’t think they like them. And quite a bit of the Democratic voter base is set to elect a female president, which Bernie could never be. Will he be able to take the party, and its voters, in a new direction? Or will he get sidelined by a political party that would rather shut him out than pave a road to success for him?
There are so many potential candidates that it is anybody’s guess what will happen. The first thing we need to know is who decides to run. Then we can start really speculating. Hillary Clinton was the big favorite in 2008 and 2016. Without her the field there are many unknowns. If Biden does run, I would he assume he would be the favorite. Being VP is a big advantage.
Bernie would win, easily. It is up to the DNC if they want to pull another “Hillary.” I just don’t think they can do it again. Bernie would do well to chose a woman as his running mate, anyone other than Warren. She had her chance to support Sanders when it counted and would not. As for running at the mouth Biden, yeah, go ahead. Force foot-in-the-mouth Biden off on the public – that’ll ensure Trump gets a second term.
If Sanders does run it would seem like a good idea for him to spend a lot of time in South Carolina making connections. He cannot afford to lose by another lopsided margin in that state again and it the order is the same again it comes right after Nevada and week before Super Tuesday. He would need to go into Super Tuesday with some momentum, not trying to rebound from a drubbing as happened in 2016… That is the challenge for him. Do well in South Carolina and on Super Tuesday. It will take a lot of work for him to meet that challenge. He knows now where he is weak as a candidate and the question is whether or not he can address it. Because his funding comes from small contributors who will keep funding him no how he does it should be possible for him to remain in the race until the end but he has to do much better to have any hope of winning.
The DNC shot themselves in the foot by playing games with their desire to run Hillary, ignoring the fact that Bernie would have likely prevailed over the Dumpster Fire. Hillary was a very hated candidate with a load of lead filled baggage. Her belief and the DNC’s belief that she was destined to be the first woman President was incorrect. I had to hold my nose to vote for her, knowing that if Dump was elected, the Supreme Court would begin to change with Gorsuch, and very likely, two or three of Dump’s future choices would replace aging Justices before he leaves office, with the U.S becoming a different country for a very long time.
Bernie would have won the general if the nomination hadn’t been stolen from him.
He will win it in 2020. He’s even more popular now. He hasn’t stopped fighting for us.
Tulsi Gabbard would make an excellent choice for Sander’s running mate. She put her political future on the line when she resigned as vice chair of the Democratic National Committee - seeing first hand what kind of crap went on there. I like her and her positions not only on domestic policies but also on foreign policy, war and imperialist intervention in other countries.
And what’s the matter with the first female Vice-President ?
His job would be much easier with a congress of his ilk.
That is our job to get him a progressive Congress. I am working on it.
The other advantage that Biden has, is he’s known as a solid Corporate Democrat, one the party power brokers can live with. You know, the folksy guy who takes public transport.
Another advantage? A Sanders campaign running as a Democrat to gather up that pesky left who gets the sick fucking game the DNC has played since the DLC spawned one Bill clucking Clinton.
I used to like Bill Clinton prior to him crushing the safety net for poor people, and catapulting the power of banks and Wall Street, and helping create a media dominated by just a handful of powerful corporations. Damn what a fool I was.
For a time, after he was elected, I was relieved to have a kind of, somewhat, left talking President. Him pushing for ratification of NAFTA was something that I was against, but the only candidate on either team of the plutocracy really against NAFTA was the insufferable right wing prick Ross Perot.
Clinton is not given enough credit for his budget, which reversed the Reagan tax cuts, and a host of other things we take for granted now in his early presidency. Unfortunately, he was the first president to deal with a massively funded and powerful conspiratorial Right, that really attained its media power in the 1990s. The country also was just a center-right place, with Republicans having controlled the White House for 16 years. I opposed NAFTA and the budget deals that included bank deregulation in his later presidency, but once voters put Gingrich in charge, Clinton’s leverage was not as strong as some on the Left like to pretend.
All of that considered does not excuse the damage that was done.
Telecommunications Act of 1996
Commodity Futures Modernization Act
Financial Services Modernization Act (killed Glass-Steagall)
And the sickening sanctions regime that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children.
The main point here, is Bill Clinton’s presidency, by design, represented a turning away from the traditional base of the Democratic Party, toward a base of super wealthy individuals and large corporations.
And here we sit, and the Corporate State Democrats still run the show.
Joe Lieberman’s DLC redo think tank, a fine representation of these individuals who haven’t even yet seen enough of this movement to the right.
“…but once voters put Gingrich in charge, Clinton’s leverage was not as strong as some on the Left like to pretend.”
One thing where there is no pretense whatsoever, by me, on the left.
The Clinton Administration advocated strongly for the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, and the Financial Services Modernization Act.
Sorry, Newt-Grinch-prick is no excuse.
I received one of those emails from Bernie and while commendable, from my perspective, if it becomes nascent and a genuine threat to the economic elite one has to wonder how effective it will be because of the democratic, parties egregious corruption.
I’m not sure she has any plans to run, but she would be a very natural VP choice for Sanders if he runs. Like I said, she made a very courageous and sincere choice to back Sanders at the risk of alienating the DNC powers (which I’m sure she did). I worry about Bernie’s age, and also don’t think the Establishment would ever let a Sanders or Gabbard make it, not at this point.
Bernie is doing just fine, starting 2018 emphasizing the coming battle in November. No Dims are telling him to stay away from their campaigns. That’s a good thing.
Well Elizabeth is a politician and she does have some good points as far as domestic policy but her voice really turns me off, so shrill. As far as the dim establishment, it seems to be in shambles at this point. Perez is really a horrible choice. I am registered as Independent and usually vote for third party. I sure wish that politicians worked for the citizens. Since they do not half of the country does not do their duty to vote. One could assume that part of the issue is the candidates and “fixed elections”. And then there is also apathy, disinformation, gerrymandering and voter registration walls. Ugh how to inform those who need to be informed but do not want to listen!
I think you better take a closer look at these Tulsi Gabbards and Kamala Harrises that they are trying to sell us. On Gabbard:
“The senator is extremely focused on making sure the Democrats win in 2018,” Weaver said, “and that is the primary goal right now: to retake the House and retake the Senate so we can stop this horrendous Trump agenda.”
So, there’ back at it. It’s all about the Democrats winning! Would this be sheep-dogging?
After a generation of corporate politics, it is vital that both journalists and the public learn to tell the difference between corrupt corporate Republicans and Democrats on the one hand and genuine, well-motivated grassroots candidates on the other. This distinction may ultimately be more important to the political future of the country than the choice between Republicans and Democrats, and telling the difference does not require an advanced degree in political science. A quick look at any candidate’s website can usually tell us most of what we need to know.