Bernie Sanders: "I Am Prepared to Run for President of the United States"

[IceSpear]

He would be a challenge and a threat to Hillary or any establishment Democrat's candidacy.

Hillary would easily beat him in the primaries. The main threat would be if he siphoned votes in the GE allowing a Republican to win.

[IceSpear]

If anyone is going to push Hillary to the left in the primaries, it's much better for it to be Sanders rather than someone like Schweitzer.

[IceSpear]

Doubt he even breaks 1% of the vote a lot of Dems learned from 2000 the consequences of voting for third party candidates.

Evidently the democratic party hasn't learned the consequences of nominating weak candidates that make people want to vote third party

Please. Hillary is a much stronger candidate than True Leftist hero candidates like Schweitzer or Sanders who would lose in a landslide. I'm sure she'll be fine without the <1% egotistical True Leftist demographic, most of which will end up pulling the lever for her in the end just like they did for Obama in 2012.

Also, I highly doubt Sanders will run third party. Unlike the suicidal True Leftists on Atlas and the vain egotists like Nader, he understands the importance of compromise and stopping Republicans.

[IceSpear]

Doubt he even breaks 1% of the vote a lot of Dems learned from 2000 the consequences of voting for third party candidates.

Evidently the democratic party hasn't learned the consequences of nominating weak candidates that make people want to vote third party

Please. Hillary is a much stronger candidate than True Leftist hero candidates like Schweitzer or Sanders who would lose in a landslide. I'm sure she'll be fine without the <1% egotistical True Leftist demographic, most of which will end up pulling the lever for her in the end just like they did for Obama in 2012.

Also, I highly doubt Sanders will run third party. Unlike the suicidal True Leftists on Atlas and the vain egotists like Nader, he understands the importance of compromise and stopping Republicans.

I don't understand this line of thinking that says Schweitzer and/or Sanders would lose in landslides, even as the Democratic candidates. These are guys who win regularly in rural states and who win large numbers of Republican voters on a regular basis, something that a Hillary Clinton or Andrew Cuomo is functionally incapable of doing. Sanders has a C rating with the NRA, for chrissake.

Schweitzer trails Cruz in his own home state. Gubernatorial elections are an entirely different beast, they're much less partisan.

As for Sanders, it's Vermont. It's no surprise he does well there since even the conservatives there tend to be somewhat reasonable. But does he honestly think some redneck from Oklahoma is going to listen to anything a self described socialist has to say about the Tea Party or Koch brothers?

Also, Hillary won many Republican votes in her 2006 Senate race. But that obviously wouldn't translate nationally, just like for Schweitzer and Sanders.

[IceSpear]

Doubt he even breaks 1% of the vote a lot of Dems learned from 2000 the consequences of voting for third party candidates.

Evidently the democratic party hasn't learned the consequences of nominating weak candidates that make people want to vote third party

Please. Hillary is a much stronger candidate than True Leftist hero candidates like Schweitzer or Sanders who would lose in a landslide. I'm sure she'll be fine without the <1% egotistical True Leftist demographic, most of which will end up pulling the lever for her in the end just like they did for Obama in 2012.

Also, I highly doubt Sanders will run third party. Unlike the suicidal True Leftists on Atlas and the vain egotists like Nader, he understands the importance of compromise and stopping Republicans.

I don't understand this line of thinking that says Schweitzer and/or Sanders would lose in landslides, even as the Democratic candidates. These are guys who win regularly in rural states and who win large numbers of Republican voters on a regular basis, something that a Hillary Clinton or Andrew Cuomo is functionally incapable of doing. Sanders has a C rating with the NRA, for chrissake.

Schweitzer trails Cruz in his own home state. Gubernatorial elections are an entirely different beast, they're much less partisan.

As for Sanders, it's Vermont. It's no surprise he does well there since even the conservatives there tend to be somewhat reasonable. But does he honestly think some redneck from Oklahoma is going to listen to anything a self described socialist has to say about the Tea Party or Koch brothers?

Also, Hillary won many Republican votes in her 2006 Senate race. But that obviously wouldn't translate nationally, just like for Schweitzer and Sanders.

Yeah, I'm inclined to take all polling before the General Election as suspect, because outside of Internet politics nerds, who on Earth knows who Schweitzer and/or Cruz are outside of their respective states?

Your writing off of Oklahoma shows precisely why a Democrat can't win there: because they do exactly the same thing. Sanders on the other hand has the advantage of being an independent, and thus not closely tied with the party, and not being focused on identity politics/muh marriage/abortion, so he has definitely a better shot at winning there than literally any Democrat does by that simple fact. Rednecks used to vote for left-wingers. There's no reason why they can't again. But they'll never vote for people like Hillary Clinton, who view them as suspect by nature of what part of the country they come from/their class background.

Schweitzer and Sanders would do far better with working class white men than Hillary Clinton could ever hope to do.

That's the point. Obviously nationwide polls mean nothing and can be chalked up to name recognition, but Schweitzer is a known quantity in Montana. He has higher name recognition there than Cruz does. Yet he still trails. That's pretty weak.

If that's the case, why are Oklahoma Democrats completely shut out from most offices? I'm sure you'd say "because they run DINOs", but I'm sure out of the hundreds of candidates Democrats have run there in the past few elections, at least some were "pure leftists". Yet none of them won. In fact, the very few Democrats in the state legislature aren't "left wingers", they're DINOs, not only on marriage and abortion, but on fiscal issues as well.

Gone are the days when white working class men are the end all and be all of politics. Gone are also the days when they cared about their economic well being. Most of them have subscribed to the Republican economic theory as political polarization has increased. That genie won't be going back in the bottle.

[IceSpear]

Doubt he even breaks 1% of the vote a lot of Dems learned from 2000 the consequences of voting for third party candidates.

Evidently the democratic party hasn't learned the consequences of nominating weak candidates that make people want to vote third party

Please. Hillary is a much stronger candidate than True Leftist hero candidates like Schweitzer or Sanders who would lose in a landslide. I'm sure she'll be fine without the <1% egotistical True Leftist demographic, most of which will end up pulling the lever for her in the end just like they did for Obama in 2012.

Also, I highly doubt Sanders will run third party. Unlike the suicidal True Leftists on Atlas and the vain egotists like Nader, he understands the importance of compromise and stopping Republicans.

I don't understand this line of thinking that says Schweitzer and/or Sanders would lose in landslides, even as the Democratic candidates. These are guys who win regularly in rural states and who win large numbers of Republican voters on a regular basis, something that a Hillary Clinton or Andrew Cuomo is functionally incapable of doing. Sanders has a C rating with the NRA, for chrissake.

Schweitzer trails Cruz in his own home state. Gubernatorial elections are an entirely different beast, they're much less partisan.

As for Sanders, it's Vermont. It's no surprise he does well there since even the conservatives there tend to be somewhat reasonable. But does he honestly think some redneck from Oklahoma is going to listen to anything a self described socialist has to say about the Tea Party or Koch brothers?

Also, Hillary won many Republican votes in her 2006 Senate race. But that obviously wouldn't translate nationally, just like for Schweitzer and Sanders.

Yeah, I'm inclined to take all polling before the General Election as suspect, because outside of Internet politics nerds, who on Earth knows who Schweitzer and/or Cruz are outside of their respective states?

Your writing off of Oklahoma shows precisely why a Democrat can't win there: because they do exactly the same thing. Sanders on the other hand has the advantage of being an independent, and thus not closely tied with the party, and not being focused on identity politics/muh marriage/abortion, so he has definitely a better shot at winning there than literally any Democrat does by that simple fact. Rednecks used to vote for left-wingers. There's no reason why they can't again. But they'll never vote for people like Hillary Clinton, who view them as suspect by nature of what part of the country they come from/their class background.

Schweitzer and Sanders would do far better with working class white men than Hillary Clinton could ever hope to do.

That's the point. Obviously nationwide polls mean nothing and can be chalked up to name recognition, but Schweitzer is a known quantity in Montana. He has higher name recognition there than Cruz does. Yet he still trails. That's pretty weak.

If that's the case, why are Oklahoma Democrats completely shut out from most offices? I'm sure you'd say "because they run DINOs", but I'm sure out of the hundreds of candidates Democrats have run there in the past few elections, at least some were "pure leftists". Yet none of them won. In fact, the very few Democrats in the state legislature aren't "left wingers", they're DINOs, not only on marriage and abortion, but on fiscal issues as well.

Gone are the days when white working class men are the end all and be all of politics. Gone are also the days when they cared about their economic well being. Most of them have subscribed to the Republican economic theory as political polarization has increased. That genie won't be going back in the bottle.

....You do realize that many working-class white men vote Democratic, right? Why wouldn't they care about their own economic well-being, anyway? It's not like either party cares much about the economic well-being of working-class people in general.

You make the classic liberal mistake of thinking that any working-class person who does not like the Democratic Party is somehow "buying in" to the theories of the Republicans. That is the nature of the two-party stranglehold on America's electoral system; voting against the party that you like less is seen as an active endorsement of the other party. That is unfortunate.

Working-class people, in my experience, tend to be more suspicious of the entire political system, of both major parties, and of Wall Street and corporations. They have less reason than wealthy folks to "buy in" to a political system that is hopelessly dominated by money, on both sides. Can't say I blame them.

Oh please. Being a "socialist" is akin to being a murderer among white working class male Republicans. Just look at how they reacted to "socialist communist nazi fascist Obamacare!!!111!!!" The idea that Bernie Sanders will somehow make these voters "see the light" borders on hilarious. They'll just see it as some evil commie elitist talking down to them, plus they won't want any taxes when they inevitably make it big. As for the moment, they're just temporarily embarrassed millionaires.

[IceSpear]

Bernie Sanders is horrible but Sanders>Clinton.

Look at the fools posting here. They would rather vote for stopping Republicans over voting for principle. FOH!!!

I hope he runs as an independent or Nader to split the Dem vote and make way for Rand Paul.

"I hope Sanders runs as an independent so a Republican can win"
"Democrats who don't support Sanders running as an independent are fools"

Yeah, makes total sense.

[IceSpear]

http://digital.vpr.net/post/sanders-tests-political-waters-new-hampshire

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Also, I highly doubt Sanders will run third party. Unlike the suicidal True Leftists on Atlas and the vain egotists like Nader, he understands the importance of compromise and stopping Republicans.

Looks like I was correct.

[IceSpear]

http://digital.vpr.net/post/sanders-tests-political-waters-new-hampshire

Also, I highly doubt Sanders will run third party. Unlike the suicidal True Leftists on Atlas and the vain egotists like Nader, he understands the importance of compromise and stopping Republicans.

Looks like I was correct.

Brian Schweitzer is a "true leftist" but Bernie Sanders isn't? I guess I just don't understand this "true leftist" term.

Schweitzer isn't a True Leftist either. But he's one of their heroes for some reason.

[IceSpear]

Run and independent general election campaign against Hillary please!

Totally support this suggestion, albeit for different reasons, I'm sure.

You would be correct, split the vote and have a new President Bush!

If Sanders does this, I will lose ALL respect for him.

Don't worry, he won't. He's not an idiot.