Well, Andrew Jackson isn’t running. I’m not clear what an “actual Democrat” is, but if you need independents to win elections, & you probably do, then this rhetoric seems counterproductive.
This difference is that he has those hardcore supporters. Warren is pretty popular, but I don’t think any of the centrists has the kind of base Bernie has.
She sounds delightful. :rolleyes:
Bernie appealed especially to younger voters, even black ones. A good proportion of them are still around, & he is less obscure now. Now he’s in, he’s probably going to win the whole thing.
Man this thread and the “I’d vote for the mummified husk of Billy Carter if he was on the other side of the ticket against Trump” thread sure do seem to be at odds.
I don’t think so. As for myself, I’d vote for the Bern IF… he is the nominee. Will he get to be the nominee? Fat chance. That’s where the snark is coming from.
That such attacks would have destroyed or seriously undermined him as a candidate in an atmosphere like that of 2016 when Donald Trump was elected President.
And so? It isn’t the Cold War anymore. IIRC, he visited the USSR and met with Sandinistas-not exactly shaking hands with Pol Pot.
The electoral performance of Bernie Sanders is more comparable to Hillary Clinton in 2008 in terms of how many contests he won compared to those others. Bradley and Edwards hardly won any contests. Tsongas died before 2000 while Jerry Brown won only California etc. None of this is to say that Sanders is entitled to the nomination anymore than Clinton was in 2016 but he has a very good reason to be a strong candidate in the same way Romney was in 2012 for example.
I will continue to lay at Bernie’s feet the whole conspiracy narrative that he decided to borrow from Trump to say that things were rigged against him. To this day, people keep repeating that nonsense as truth. He deliberately created a division that made it more difficult for his followers to turn around and vote for Clinton should she win, when he knew he was a long shot the entire time.
He also didn’t drop out when he had no mathematical chance of winning, making sure to hold onto that divide up until time.
538 specifically said that if Clinton lost by less than 0.1% of the vote, you could blame Sander followers. Well, she lost by negative percentages, so I blame them. There are places where, if everyone who voted for a liberal third party would have voted for Democrats, we would not have had Trump as president.
No, they aren’t responsible for everything. But they are part of the reason why Trump won, and thus I do not support him. I don’t trust him not to try and exploit the progressive/liberal divide again because it helps him win the nomination, but does not in any way help in the general election.
The Democratic Party should have at the top of its ticket, a person who is actually a member of the party. If you don’t identify enough with the party’s political agenda to call yourself a member, why should you lead the party? This has nothing to do with trying to win independent voters, you always try to do that. Members of both parties always try to win the independent voters, it doesn’t mean that nominees of either party have to give up their affiliation to do so.
I’m someone who has been pretty harsh on Sanders and his supporters at times, but playing the role of devil’s advocate for a moment, there’s probably an argument to be made that the Democratic party needed to find its soul again, and that Bernie Sanders was the only one who could force that kind of tectonic shift. And some would argue that he could only put that kind of pressure by being an outsider with a popular movement. Sanders created a competition for the party that serves progressive causes - sometimes competition is good. It forces organizations to be better.
Exactly. I’m going to vote for whoever the Democrats nominate, and I really really hope it isn’t Bernie or Hillary. Because those guys will lose to Trump.
I will almost certainly vote for him. No other candidate can come close to matching his record of integrity and adherence to progressive principles. His 2016 campaign was a historic effort which served to push the Democrats substantially to the left and mobilized a new generation of progressive activists.
His age is a problem. His refusal to release his tax returns could be another significant problem for me. Still, these negatives are IMO vastly outweighed by the positives.
Having said that, I don’t see how he’s possibly going to do better as one of twenty than he did as one of two. Minority voters were a major weakness for him against HRC; again, you’d have to be pretty wildly optimistic to expect him to improve on that when running against actual minorities.
My WAG is that about half of Bernie’s 2016 support came from people like me who understand and agree with his message. I’m guessing most of those will agree with me that there is no compelling reason to look for another candidate now.
The other half came from never-Hillary types and those attracted to novelty and anti-establishment posturing. I expect him to find it much harder to hang onto those less ideological voters in a more crowded field.
So I predict he will get about half the votes he got last time, which will be enough to earn him a large bloc of delegates and a significant voice in deciding the nominee in the event of a brokered convention. He could even plausibly end up with a plurality of votes and delegates, depending on how the field shakes out. A path to the actual nomination is hard for me to see, but he vastly exceeded my expectations last time, and I certainly hope he can do so again.
Has he filed his letter with the DNC Chairman yet? Has he even registered to vote as a Democrat yet?
Did he concede and start to work for the party’s candidate as soon as the nomination was decided in 2016, instead of continuing to try to damage her?
As you know: No.
Don’t let your participation in a cult of personality affect your definition of truth itself. That’s Trumpism as well as Bro-ism; they’re the same damn thing.
If you want to argue that Sanders has displayed insufficient loyalty to the Democratic Party, that’s certainly a reasonable argument to be made. But you have repeatedly stated that he has never claimed to be a Democrat. I hope you will now stop doing so.
I have no idea whether he has filed anything with the DNC. Do you have any cites that any other candidates have done so? I know that he is not registered as a Democrat, because Vermont has nonpartisan voter registration, so that isn’t a relevant question.
And of course Sanders conceded and worked actively for the Party’s nominee once the nomination was decided. He did keep running after his nomination seemed highly unlikely…just like Hillary Clinton did in 2008. The only difference is that many of her supporters were apparently so embittered by her attacks on the successful candidate that they failed to support the Party’s candidate in the general election.
Not a Bernie fan but it is and it surprised me. I hadn’t expected Warren’s roll out to go so well and didn’t think the small donors to return to Sanders in force.
I still think he will peter out in early days this time but that sort of early response makes me less confident about it.
An opinion piece? Really? Maybe you should have been following the news in 2016 instead.
When Sanders signs the letter, affirming that he considers himself a member of and supports the party whose adulation he demands, and its policies and candidates, do please let us know. You do know why that rule was enacted, don’t you?