Preach it!
No. Have a strong primary opponent really sharpens up your organization. If Sanders hadn’t entered the race leaving only Martin O’Malley Clinton would have done much worse against Trump.
Oh good. Everyone is going to be super reasonable and rational this time. Good to hear. 
“Germany lost because the Jews stabbed us in the back!”
Sanders is almost certainly running and will declare whatever he needs to in order to do so.
I think Sanders’ support last time came from two approximately equal blocs; sincere progressive ideologues and low-information anti-establishment types who don’t want anyone they perceive as “boring” or “establishment”. I think almost all of the former will rally to him again if he runs, but it will be interesting to see where the hipsters go in this much larger field. My guess is Booker and O’Rourke would be well positioned.
Paid agents of Vladmir Putin pretending to be Sanders supporters tried to damage Clinton after she was established as the certain winner. I’m not sure what Sanders was supposed to do about that.
Biden.
Putin didn’t need to do that. There were plenty of people doing that on their own. Including Sanders.
If he does, it will be as a third party / independent. He’ll never sign.
If he runs third party that means 4 more years of Trump. :mad:
I don’t suppose Sanders could have done much about that.
But this is a very weird narrative that has been coming up lately, not just here on this board but elsewhere, and I don’t understand it. I mean, I know people IRL who were trying to “damage Clinton after she was established as the certain winner.” Ordinary people living right here in New York State (and elsewhere in the country) who were pro-Sanders and vehemently anti-Clinton, whose conversation seemed to consist entirely of “Clinton stole the nomination” and “she’s the worst candidate ever” and “she’s really a Republican, you know” and “I would never vote for her and you shouldn’t either.” It’s bizarre to me to think that any of these people could be considered “agents of Putin.”
Now, I think that Sanders unleashed some things among these supporters that he turned out to be unable to control. So it’s not all his fault. And I do think that once we got past Labor Day he became much less divisive and did do some important work to help Clinton. But if he’d given a concession speech right after he lost badly in California, instead of staying in till the convention; if he’d told some of his more influential supporters to tone down the rhetoric; if, if, if; well, I think he could have contained some of the damage. And yes, he could have done something about that, regardless of what Putin did or did not do.
Yes, he could have and shoudl have done those very things, and this is why I despise the man:if he’d given a concession speech right after he lost badly in California, instead of staying in till the convention; if he’d told some of his more influential supporters to tone down the rhetoric.
He cost us 4 years of Trump and it looks like he is keying up to force another 4 years of Trump down our throats.
Then let’s borrow a term from Lenin: “Useful idiots”.
Unable, or maybe just uninterested. At some point it became an ego trip for him, and he had no more interest than he has ever had in the resulting damage to a party he wasn’t even a part of. As long as the adulation kept coming, he was happy.
And that, btw, is why he probably *will *run in 2020, as an independent - to soak up the love some more, the consequences to the rest of us be damned.
This is just nuts. Sanders is not the devil, and I see absolutely no reason to believe he’d run third party. Especially since he’s specifically said that he wouldn’t, because that would aid the Republicans.
We should welcome anyone who is exciting progressives and liberals, and Sanders definitely has proven that he fits the bill. I suspect he’ll run, and declare that he’s a Democrat (per the rules), and that will be good for the party and for our chances to win in 2020. The more progressive voices, the merrier, IMO.
Running as a third party would be totally disastrous.
Even running as a dem would be bad. The Bernie bros have already started their attacks on leading Dem candidates.
Setting aside his actions before the Convention; after the Convention did Sanders devote considerable time and effort in campaigning for Hillary?
(I am *not *“just asking questions.” I wasn’t paying attention then and don’t know the answer.)
No, he’s not the devil, but he *is *ego-driven.
Obviously I missed that. Not to be trite, but, cite?
He’s *always *been welcome to join the party whose support he feels entitled to. He’s always been welcome to actually work toward the goals he says are important to him, too.
No. He gave a very nice concession speech, and said he was 100% behind Clinton… but I think that was more or less it. IIRC
All, or almost all politicians are at least partly driven by ego. I see nothing to suggest Sanders is more driven by ego than, say, Hillary Clinton (and his ego obviously drives him considerably less than assholes like Trump or Howard Shultz, since he worked his way up from mayor to senator to presidential candidate).
He said it during the '16 campaign cycle: https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/249800-sanders-vows-no-third-party-run-in-2016
If he reverses himself for 2020, and I see no evidence he’s even considering this, I’ll join you in condemning him.
Hmm. While I agree with your first sentence, I’m having some trouble with the quoted part of your second sentence.
As mentioned above, Sanders kept on keepin’ on after California. I’ll add that he did so with about 42% of the popular vote in the primaries and with a very small share of the superdelegates, and no path at all to the nomination short of “Hillary dies of a heart attack” or “Hillary is indicted”–both of which had very close to zero chance of happening.
Contrast with Clinton in 2008, who bowed out of the race a couple of days after the final primaries with a full-support concession speech. I’ll add that she did so with almost exactly half of the popular vote and a significant share of the pledged superdelegates. Her claim on the nomination was surely stronger than Sanders’s, yet she got out much earlier.
FWIW, I supported Obama and thought that Clinton waited far too long to exit the race. But her dragging her feet (which I felt at the time, and still feel, was due almost entirely to ego) is NOTHING compared to Sanders eight years later. It’s pretty clear to me that Sanders is far more ego-driven than Clinton. Do you have a different interpretation of Sanders’s unwillingness to get out of the race?
Hillary was doing better in the early states than the late states, by my memory, in '08. So, IIRC, her support was declining as the contests went on. Sanders was doing better and better, in general, IIRC, as the contests went on.
But they’re two different circumstances, and ultimately both runners-up endorsed and campaigned for the winner. And there’s more to judge them on with regards to ego than their presidential runs.