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

[TNF]

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.

[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.

[TNF]

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.

[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.

[All Along The Watchtower]

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.

[henster]

Did you see how Bernie held up against Bachmann in a debate? She completely embarrassed him if he can't beat Bachmann in a debate I can't imagine how badly he'd do against Clinton.

[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.

[Zioneer]

Did you see how Bernie held up against Bachmann in a debate? She completely embarrassed him if he can't beat Bachmann in a debate I can't imagine how badly he'd do against Clinton.

Are you joking? If you saw the same debate I did, Bernie demolished Bachmann, and his only missteps were thinking Bachmann wasn't as stupid as she seemed.

[nolesfan2011]

I'd pick the first flight to the USA to campaign for him if necessary, no matter if he runs as a democrat or independent/3rd party. But I agree with other posters, that'd hand republicans the election, and Sanders would get all the (undeserved) blame, so not likely.

If he runs against Clinton in the primaries, he'd have an oportunity to explain to Americans what "socialism" actually means, but I find it higly unlikely that he pushes Hillary to the left. Maybe she'd campaign as a more progressive candidate... but, as President, no difference.

This, he should run in the Dem primaries for media attention, debate access and perhaps the ability to snag a state or 2 and make Clinton/other Dems sweat, then "drop out" , and grab the Green or Justice Party nomination (ballot access main benefit) at their conventions to run in the general.  He should have enough polling to get into the debates, his volunteer and fundraising core would stay behind him and maybe he has a chance.

[Matty]

Bernie Sanders could be the democratic candidate that can break the republican stranglehold on the south.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

Bernie Sanders could be the democratic candidate that can break the republican stranglehold on the south.

And by the South I think you mean South of Canada.

[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.

[Joshgreen]

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.

Maybe you should try to master your spelling list for tomorrow's quiz instead of posting on the web...

[Eraserhead]

Endorsed.

[Ogre Mage]

We would welcome and encourage Sanders to run in the Democratic Primary.

[fartboy]

Oh please run as an independent and take votes away from Democrats.

[SWE]

Oh please run as an independent and take votes away from Democrats.

The fact that you think you need a third party candidate to win tells me a lot about the GOP

[Randy Bobandy]

Please, please let this happen.

[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.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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.

[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.

[MurrayBannerman]

So, he gets to be their Ron Paul? Cool.

[SWE]

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.

The term "true leftist" has no clear definition.

[Ogre Mage]

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.

Good for Sanders and I think there is something to his analysis about primary politics.  As I said before, we would encourage his presence in the Democratic Primary if he chose to run.

[Mordecai]

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.

I am glad that he is being realistic and pragmatic about this. He is not running a Quixotic Nader-eque campaign, he recognizes that even if he does not win the nomination he can raise the issues of wealth and income inequality and also prompt Hillary to move left

I think this is a major difference between Sanders and other candidates like Nader, Kucinich and Gravel, he has realistic expectations of his candidacy and is using the campaign to draw attention to issues and not just to stroke his own ego. It also helps that he is not particularly whacky or weird, he's pretty grounded and down-to-earth for a socialist. He knows what issues speak to people and how to talk with them and not at them.