Bernie Sanders (I) open to 2016 Presidential run

[Uncensored2008]

He stands no chance.

Still, nothing ventured, nothing gained.

RUN BERNIE RUN!

 

[Dot Com]

He is one of the few who would not fall into the Left/Right Paradigm AKA the controlled opposition, as in the thread created by Wry Catcher the other day,

 

[Uncensored2008]

Ditto. He is a corporatist, a neo-liberal, globalist, certainly not a socialist of any stripe.

By corporatist you mean Fascist?

I think that to a lot of people the fact of a person advocating globalist goals coupled with authoritarian rule and a command economy echos the regimes of Mao and Stalin. Technically, "socialist" is the wrong term, but from a practical standpoint, it well describes what is occurring.

 

[Stephanie]

dear gawd we need SAVED from these people...

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Go, Bernie, go!!

He could garner dozens and dozens of votes, nationwide.

Dear IM. If you could be a dear, please put back on your thinking cap, remove your sarcasm setting just for one brief moment - and tell me your perceptions on post 11.

Ta.

Seriously, for just this instant:

Bernie does not have enough electoral wattage to draw enough votes from anybody to affect any race, nationwide.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

That's not his problem.

Bernie is a fine chap.

But all he has to do is go on Meet the Press.

And say he's a Socialist..which he would.

Done.

He's a Socialist based on what positions?
Be specific as I do not look forward to living in a country overwhelmingly controlled by any given level of government.

He's a socialist based on that's what he calls himself.

Sheesh..you ever bother to listen to the guy?

But, maybe, he's just intentionally mis-labeling himself?

Like, perhaps he's really just a devout Communist but thinks "socialist" will sound better to the American political ear?

 

[Sallow]

Sanders will never be President. And a vote for Sanders is a wasted vote.

Bad attitude. That was commonly believed about FDR. Think of where we'd be if the voters were swayed by it.

Support Bernie!

That's the political reality at the moment.

Like I said, he's a fine and reasonable fellow.

Unfortunately, the rich and the insane are now running the country.

 

[Sallow]

He's a Socialist based on what positions?
Be specific as I do not look forward to living in a country overwhelmingly controlled by any given level of government.

He's a socialist based on that's what he calls himself.

Sheesh..you ever bother to listen to the guy?

But, maybe, he's just intentionally mis-labeling himself?

Like, perhaps he's really just a devout Communist but thinks "socialist" will sound better to the American political ear?

Seriously Liability...I generally expect better of you.

 

[MikeK]

Isn't he currently an Independent? I saw "I" after his name.

CNN, FOX NEWS, MSNBC, PBS also all claim to be independent networks.

He ran as, and was elected as, an Independent. I have no idea why you are trying to change the subject, nor do I care.

It's a subtle form of right-wing desperation.

Sad.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Seriously, for just this instant:

Bernie does not have enough electoral wattage to draw enough votes from anybody to affect any race, nationwide.

Yeah, but it would still be fun to watch all the OWS shitters support him.

Trust me, it would be more fun than a bag full of Naders!

 

[IlarMeilyr]

CNN, FOX NEWS, MSNBC, PBS also all claim to be independent networks.

He ran as, and was elected as, an Independent. I have no idea why you are trying to change the subject, nor do I care.

It's a subtle form of right-wing desperation.

Sad.

Yeah: because if an avowed Socialist RUNS as an "Independent," then he must not really be a Socialist.

MikeK's latest fail is quite amusing.

Thanks for the chortles, MikeyK.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

He ran as, and was elected as, an Independent. I have no idea why you are trying to change the subject, nor do I care.

It's a subtle form of right-wing desperation.

Sad.

Yeah: because if an avowed Socialist RUNS as an "Independent," then he must not really be a Socialist.

MikeK's latest fail is quite amusing.

Thanks for the chortles, MikeyK.

Maybe Mike is just ignorant

 

[CrusaderFrank]

He is one of the few who would not fall into the Left/Right Paradigm AKA the controlled opposition, as in the thread created by Wry Catcher the other day,

He's not a leftist??????

 

[PoliticalChic]

We need to support Sander and Nader

Conservatives for Sanders (or Nader)

I'm down wit' dat!





But I may need some of the beverages in your avi....

...can't let my children drink the water!

Must be something in it.....'cause all of these went the local high school:



"BROOKLYN, N.Y. -- In every high school there are reliable main characters: the cheerleader, the jock, the outsider and, naturally, the valedictorian.

But Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a twirler? Sen. Bernie Sanders, a track superstar? And Sen. Norm Coleman, a Vietnam protester?

All three along with "head of the class" Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., attended James Madison High School in Brooklyn. Madison is most likely the only alma mater that can boast three sitting U.S. senators -- a Republican, a Democrat and an Independent, along with a Supreme Court justice -- in the pages of its yearbook."
Brooklyn School Boasts Famous Graduates in Washington - Helena Andrews - POLITICO.com

 

[CrusaderFrank]

He's got to run against the mess Obama's made out of the country with his Laissez-faire economics

 

[Iceman]

Ditto. He is a corporatist, a neo-liberal, globalist, certainly not a socialist of any stripe.

By corporatist you mean Fascist?

I think that to a lot of people the fact of a person advocating globalist goals coupled with authoritarian rule and a command economy echos the regimes of Mao and Stalin. Technically, "socialist" is the wrong term, but from a practical standpoint, it well describes what is occurring.

No, not a Fascist. A Fascist would mold the corporate structure to serve the nation-state. A Corporatists uses the nation state to serve the corporation. That is what I meant when I implied corporatist.

Does he have certain "marxist" tendencies? Perhaps. But Obama is more of a cultural marxist than an economic marxist.

 

[Statistikhengst]

And I'd vote for him.

Two words.

Ralph Nader.

Indeed. I concur with you and I LOVE your designation as "Eisenhower Republican", for without a doubt, had I been an adult in the 1950s, I would have also had one of those "I Like Ike" buttons. One of the greatest and unfortunately, more underrated presidents we ever had. His biggest mistake was letting Prescott Bush cajole him into picking Richard Nixon to be his running mate.

To Bernie Sanders himself: an interesting guy. And maybe he is just sending a warning shot across the bow of the USS-Clinton, looking into 2016...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

And I'd vote for him.

Two words.

Ralph Nader.

Indeed. I concur with you and I LOVE your designation as "Eisenhower Republican", for without a doubt, had I been an adult in the 1950s, I would have also had one of those "I Like Ike" buttons. One of the greatest and unfortunately, more underrated presidents we ever had. His biggest mistake was letting Prescott Bush cajole him into picking Richard Nixon to be his running mate.

To Bernie Sanders himself: an interesting guy. And maybe he is just sending a warning shot across the bow of the USS-Clinton, looking into 2016...

Some people are instructed to post here pretending to have been Republicans.

Welcome to the forum

 

[Statistikhengst]

I'm a newbie here, but election history and electoral statistics is right up my alley. I have the feeling I am gonna be on this sub-forum a lot!!

You know, 2016 is a long ways away, and Bernie Sanders may just be pissing in the wind. But if he is not, it would not harm us to have a viable 3rd and even a 4th party candidate that is not just picking up the scatter votes. I think it is very healthy for our political system to have more than two truly viable choices.

Pretty soon, I will be able to post links here, but at my politics blog at blogspot, the electoral history of a lot of this has been covered by me, with the help of a number of invaluable resources.

Did you know that FDR actually had THREE challengers from within the Democratic party in 1940 for the nomination for his unprecedented third term? And yet, he sailed through the nomination easily. Did you know that a Socialist, far more to the Left than FDR ever was, Norman Thomas, got 1.07% of the vote in Wisconsin in the 1940 GE, but that didn't keep FDR from carrying WI, a traditionally RED state, for the third time in a row? Thomas also got 0.58% of the vote in MONTANA (yes, the Big Sky State itself) in that year, and a Communist, Earl Browder, got 0.20% in MONTANA. Amazing, but true. Here is another amazing tidbit of history: Thomas (Socialist) got exactly that same 0.58% of the vote in Washington State in that year as he did in Montana, and he took 0.50% in California, but under a different name: it was called the "Progressive" Party in California in that year. None of this kept FDR from winning a third landslide victory, both in the NPV and also in the EC.

Similar stories from 1944: Norman Thomas was back again as the Socialist candidate and got 0.99% of the vote in Wisconsin, which flipped to Dewey (R) in that year, but Dewey came in over 50%, so with or without Thomas, FDR would have lost the state in his fourth election. In Minnesota in 1944, Thomas got 0.45% of the vote, but that didn't stop an FDR win of +5.55% over Dewey. In Texas, "no candidate", put up by the Texas Rangers Party, got 11.77% of the vote in that year! That was an obvious protest vote against FDR going for a 4th term, but it didn't stop him from landsliding in the Lone Star State with a whalloping 71.24% of the vote.

So, if Sanders does run, what is he going to do? Reduce Hillary's +35 margin in VT down to +25? Big deal.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Two words.

Ralph Nader.

Indeed. I concur with you and I LOVE your designation as "Eisenhower Republican", for without a doubt, had I been an adult in the 1950s, I would have also had one of those "I Like Ike" buttons. One of the greatest and unfortunately, more underrated presidents we ever had. His biggest mistake was letting Prescott Bush cajole him into picking Richard Nixon to be his running mate.

To Bernie Sanders himself: an interesting guy. And maybe he is just sending a warning shot across the bow of the USS-Clinton, looking into 2016...

Some people are instructed to post here pretending to have been Republicans.

Welcome to the forum

I used to be a Republican, too.

Of course, I used to be a Democratic, also.

Now?

I'm neither.

Also, I am not even remotely a "Socialist."

And, I'm not an "Indy," either.

Nor am I a "Libertarian."

My political party affiliation puts me in a small group, especially in a liberal wasteland like the dark blue Empire State. Wiki says we are 1.3% of the NY State registered voters.

FEEL the power!

Oh well.