Bernie Sanders makes it official. How far will he go in 2020?

So much has been made of Sen. Bernie Sanders since 2016 and in the time since November 2016.

I’m wondering what dopers think of his chances in 2020. What, if anything, will be different about his campaign this time around? Will he be as strong as he was in 2020?

It seems that a number of his ideas which were, shall we say, unorthodox a few years ago have since become more widely embraced. Major candidates are talking about minimum wage hikes, low-cost college, and universal healthcare, which were his signature issues.

Does Bernie still have that niche to work with and will he be regarded as the more authentic candidate? Or will he get pushed aside by other household names like Harris, Booker, and Biden (if Biden runs)?

How will Sanders’ age affect perceptions about him?

Will he be able to bridge the gaps that he had with black voters in particular? If so, how?

Does he have any foreign policy positions yet?

Is he currently a Democrat? Or is he just (again) going to use the party resources and dump the party when he’s done?

I think Bernie will be lucky to meet the 15% threshold for winning delegates in most states.

If he’s still running after Super Tuesday, that fact will be of interest only to his most hard-core fans.

He’s at around 17%. I don’t see many people bailing on Bernie unless an equally blinkered idealist makes a pitch to them. Warren is going to flop, so they won’t go to her. They all have major anti-progressive problems that will turn off the Bernie-ites. I also don’t see him picking up too many people from the Biden, Harris, or Booker factions, so at best he will go into the convention with a small contingent.

This is a party that will be hobbled. The various factions are getting too vocal.

This will be a Ron Paul style campaign with maybe a little more oomph.

The most interesting thing about this is how far can he take it when his lane - which he had alone in 2016- has other, more palatable contenders in it. He’ll have his hardcore supporters - my youngest brother is one, for example - but he’s not one of a field of two this time. There are other options for those not wanting Hillary or Hillary-equivalent.

Or, to quote what a member of my resist from just posted:

“Old. White. Man. No thanks.”

I don’t agree with the sentiment, but that’s going to be something to overcome in a primary electorate that will likely be more than 70% persons of color or female.

While Biden is a household name Harris and Booker definitely are not.

At this stage of the race, neither Bill Clinton nor Barack Obama were anywhere close to being household names.

I think the comparison to Ron Paul is an apt one, he has passionate supporters but I don’t think he does even as well as last time. I’m not worried about the Democrats having too many in their primary, most normal primary candidates drop out by South Carolina if they don’t look viable, and then the also-rans drop out by Super Tuesday. If there’s niche candidates remaining after that, they usually only get small numbers of delegates and no one cares.

The only reason Bernie ever got the traction he did is there was a sizable number of Democrats who just weren’t entirely comfortable with Hillary. But there was no meaningful opposition to her–there was Bernie who was loud and passionate. Probably the worst thing that happened for HRC’s election chances in 2015/2016 is that she wasn’t challenged by a strong opponent, because it boosted Bernie’s numbers and put her into a damaging primary contest against a really loud rabble rouser.

I would note, as a former Republican (now independent), and a conservative–I voted for HRC due to Trump’s unsuitability for the office. If the Democrats nominate Bernie I will not vote for him under any circumstance.

Give. It. Up. Bernie.


For Larry David, a chance to work enough to buy that vacation home. For the rest of us, not much to offer. In 2016, he was the straight talking alternative to the inevitable Hillary. Now, his lane is occupied by sleeker and newer models. He’s running like we owe him something, as if 2016 was taken from him. Yes, the DNC was in Hillary’s pocket. But she also got more votes than Bernie nearly everywhere. Personally, I’d prefer that the Democratic nomination go to, you know, an actual Democrat.

Disclaimer: everyone on the SDMB knows I hate Bernie Sanders.

He won’t go far in 2020 and he is becoming Ron Paul. I’m not a Washington insider, but I do know he rubbed a lot of his senate colleagues the wrong way with the scorched earth campaign and ‘take it to the convention.’ Bernie got treated with the mildest of kid gloves in 2016 as there was no way he could reasonably overtake Clinton in pledged delegates after Super Tuesday and certainly not after New York.

Oh, by the way, Kirsten Gillibrand is running and I’m sure she’ll have a lot to say about the allegations of sexism and harassment on Bernie’s 2016 campaign. Bernie’s also going to have a pissed off Hillary Clinton behind the scenes and I’m sure she’s got tons of opposition research that she never used in 2016.

Those college kids and young people from 2016 are 4 years older now. They’ve lived through Trump. Plus, when you’re in your late teens to early 20s, you change a lot in 4 years.

So, no, I don’t think Bernie has a chance to catch fire again.

he will take it all the way to the early bird buffet at Golden Corral.

I don’t know. Bernie would have trounced Trump in 2016 if he were the nominee, and if we’re going by the ‘it’s his turn’ model of presidential nomination logic, then he should by rights be the frontrunner. I will probably vote for him in the primary, unless he has flamed out and my vote otherwise goes to Warren.

Isn’t his wife under FBI investigation, though? That could, um…pose a big fucking problem.

Sanders is the most important player in the Democratic party in the past four years, and this despite not being a Democrat. He helped to energize a new generation of progressives, and more importantly, he forced Clinton and others to talk about progressive causes seriously. His campaign was incredibly important.

Sanders: shut up, dude. You won the victory you set out to win. You’re the bow that fired the arrow. Don’t try to be the arrow.

I don’t agree that Bernie would have trounced Trump, but I’m done rehashing 2016.

But you did bring up a great point about Jane Sanders. Many of Bernie’s most rabid supporters had no problem tying Bill Clinton’s actions to Hillary. I’m quite sure Hillary and others behind the scenes will make damn sure that the Jane Sanders news is out there front and center.

No one who lost an election, directly or indirectly, to Donald Trump should run again. Hillary lost to Trump, Sanders lost to Hillary. If you lost to Trump you get to retire from the “running for President” derby.

I thought claims of “it’s her turn” was the main reason people didn’t like Hillary. Let’s not invite that again.

I think Bernie’s fine, but hardly (to me) inspirational. I don’t have much of a beef with his platform, but I don’t think he has the political skills to get much of his agenda through Congress if elected. He’s vastly better than what we have now (who isn’t?) but I don’t see why he’s better than 10 other candidates.

The comparison to Ron Paul falls flat for various reasons. Sanders performed far better than Ron Paul did in any of his primary runs, winning a larger number of states and share of the overall vote. Even more significant is that Ron Paul made near zero impact on the rest of the Republican Party, who never became sympathetic to neo-isolationism in foreign policy or an abolition of the Federal Reserve. By contrast, Bernie Sanders’s social democratic views such as support for single-payer healthcare, free college, 15 dollar minimum wage, and reduction of income inequality have the support of both the majority of Democrats and are espoused by many elected officials. It fundamentally helps that Sanders’s views are much more mainstream and appealing than those of Ron Paul. I also find it telling that the anti-Clinton vote in the 2016 primary coalesced around Sanders rather than Martin O’Malley or Jim Webb, suggesting support for him was driven by positive factors rather than merely the negative one of dislike for Clinton.

With all due respect, the Democratic Party is or at least ought not be in the business of nominating candidates with a view towards who can appeal towards lifelong Republicans the most. Who do you intend on voting for in a Sanders vs. Trump scenario?

This logic is strange.

“Reagan lost to Ford, Ford lost to Carter. Therefore Reagan should not run for President in 1980.”

He won’t have the novelty factor that he did in 2016 and he’ll be four years older. If elected he’d be entering the White House at an older age than when Reagan left the White House.

Really, the solution to electing an oldest-POTUS-ever Trump is to elect an even-older POTUS?