I have mixed feelings about Senator Sanders’s potential candidacy. While he is one of my favourite Senators (along with Casey of Pennsylvania and Warren of Massachusetts) and undoubtedly one of the most courageous, I fear that an independent run in the general election will end up causing a spoiler effect much as Ralph Nader did especially if the Republicans nominate a supposed “moderate” such as Chris Christie or Jon Huntsman. However I heartily endorse the idea of him running in the Democratic primaries as it may cause other Democratic candidates and perhaps the whole political discourse to shift to the left. In addition his plan of a populist appeal to the white working class is a desperately needed move after decades in which the Democratic Party has been losing in that constituency and hopefully may serve as the basis for a new New Deal coaliton. On the other hand due to his age and relative obscurity, I don’t think Senator Sanders will actually receive the Democratic nomination and he will probably do much more in the Senate (although the idea of a Clinton-Sanders ticket is tempting)/
Sanders is a national treasure. I salute the voters of Vermont for sharing him with us for all these years. That being said, he’s too old and would never get the nomination. Should he run as an independent, it would merely split the Democratic vote and assure a Republican win and with it the apocalypse.
And one that won’t give credence to claims that she’s a socialist. Putting an actual socialist on the ticket kinda establishes that you’re probably a socialist, no?
He won’t run as an independent - it wouldn’t accomplish anything. In the Democratic primaries he could perhaps steer the conversation toward issues that matter to him.
I don’t know if he is, but he has called himself that. His voting record has been disappointingly soft though. He doesn’t cause nearly as many problems for his caucus as Ron Paul did in the Republican caucus.
I don’t think he would claim to not be a socialist. It’s just that conservatives have trotted out this “socialist” bullshit so many times that I think Gagundathar assumed it was being used incorrectly here. But for once, it’s more or less accurate here.
I stand (or sit) corrected.
The pejorative tone of the word in current political parlance is always off-putting.
I looked at a summary of his voting record, and gosh I sure wish he were MY senator, political tags notwithstanding. But then, I have such wonderful men as Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson to compare him with, I daresay that is not much of a compliment.
That’s a somewhat strange comparison, but yes, the logic is odd and it doesn’t quite scan. The VP’s ideas always get subordinated to the presidential candidate’s, and there’s no such thing as “endorsing a Southerner.” There is trying to appeal to Southerners, though. And you know that Clinton would have trouble trying to bat away “socialism!” attacks if she actually picked a socialist. That’s not all that unreasonable.
I hope he doesn’t run. I wouldn’t want him to hang out in a vanity candidacy like Jerry Brown or Dennis Kucinich. Once it’s clear who the nominee is, bow out gracefully.
I agree with Jonathan Chance. Run in the primary for long enough to pull the Overton window as far left as he can, then bow out gracefully and endorse the winner. Hopefully, rehabilitate the word “socialist” a bit in the process, too.