I - VT
April 28, 2015 6:10 PM   Subscribe

Vermont Public Radio reports that Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders will announce his run for the Democratic nomination for US President. Other sources - among them, the Guardian and the Washington Post - have confirmed the scoop.
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane (214 comments total) 43 users marked this as a favorite
 
Awesome.
posted by showbiz_liz at 6:12 PM on April 28, 2015 [12 favorites]




i had vowed not to watch the debates but now i cannot f-ing wait!!!!
YAAAAY now i can vote with pride.
posted by Conrad-Casserole at 6:17 PM on April 28, 2015 [8 favorites]


Looks like I've got someone to vote for in the primaries now.
posted by Faint of Butt at 6:18 PM on April 28, 2015 [33 favorites]


He has my vote.

Not that it will matter.
posted by indubitable at 6:18 PM on April 28, 2015 [8 favorites]


He has my vote.

Not that it will matter.


It might matter. Not in the sense that he'll actually win - although that would be amazing/hilarious - but in the sense that, if he actually manages to hold his own, he could make the Democratic primary conversation very, very different from what it would have been otherwise.
posted by showbiz_liz at 6:25 PM on April 28, 2015 [90 favorites]


Woot!
posted by notyou at 6:27 PM on April 28, 2015


Plus the effort gets people involved, participating, learning how to campaign, etc.
posted by notyou at 6:29 PM on April 28, 2015 [2 favorites]


What a bright spot in this day.
posted by padraigin at 6:29 PM on April 28, 2015 [1 favorite]


I'm surprised really. He had said before that he'd only run if he thought he could actually win. And he can't actually win! A bona fide socialist? If he won the election he'd be dead before inauguration day.
posted by dis_integration at 6:29 PM on April 28, 2015 [1 favorite]


Most people said the same about a black guy named Obama, though.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 6:31 PM on April 28, 2015 [13 favorites]


So, good. Perfect. Someone who is principled, articulate, and will force the conversation to address the views of the left. I hope he stays in for months and months.

And then drops out so the left doesn't spilt their votes and make it easy for a Republican to gain the White House.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 6:33 PM on April 28, 2015 [2 favorites]


Most people said the same about a black guy named Obama, though.

Yeah, but that falls into the whole "Obama in people's heads/hearts" vs. the "Obama that actually ran for president" situation.
posted by sideshow at 6:35 PM on April 28, 2015


And then drops out so the left doesn't split their votes and make it easy for a Republican to gain the White House.

I don't see how this would happen, unless he ran third party. Or do you mean you're worried he'll get people too fired up about Not Hillary and then they won't vote in the general at all?
posted by showbiz_liz at 6:35 PM on April 28, 2015


The socialist inside me is jumping with glee; I'll probably vote for him in the primaries.

The realist within me knows there's not a chance in huh-ELL he has a chance at winning the general. Lets hope he pulls the left TO the left….even by a couple inches.

Sanders/Warren 2016!!

(oh my god, can you just imagine the debates….EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE)
posted by furnace.heart at 6:36 PM on April 28, 2015 [16 favorites]


Hold on a sec. I know my McGovern stuff is in one of these boxes...
posted by jim in austin at 6:38 PM on April 28, 2015 [11 favorites]


Yeah they said Obama was a socialist, but he was always Wall Street's boy. He played the game and that's how he got so far so fast. Sanders is actually a socialist! He's a genuine threat to finance capital's stranglehold on American policy. If anything the threat of Sanders means even more money will be thrown Hillary's way. And if that fails, who knows?
posted by dis_integration at 6:39 PM on April 28, 2015 [5 favorites]


May he get more votes than Lizard People.
posted by delfin at 6:39 PM on April 28, 2015 [7 favorites]


The interesting question in Iowa is if the Elizabeth Warren people will cross over to him. My hunch is that a lot of them won't, but it will be interesting to see. There are a lot of pretty hardcore party loyalists involved in the caucus race, and I think they'll have a hard time swallowing a Democrat-of-convenience. Plus, he's a brash, egg-heady, East Coast Jew, and I don't think that will fly. (I say that as a brash, egg-heady, East Coast Jewish transplant.)

Obviously, he can't win the caucus, but it would be an achievement to get any considerable amount of support.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:40 PM on April 28, 2015 [2 favorites]


Oh, and I'm hearing from some party activists that they think this will hurt Rand Paul more than Hillary, because there are some people who would have registered Republican to caucus for Rand Paul, and now they'll stay Democrat to caucus for Sanders. That idea blows my mind, but I think there are some lefty people who are inexplicably seduced by Paul. I think it could be wishful thinking, though.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:42 PM on April 28, 2015 [5 favorites]


I know there's zero chance of Saunders getting the nomination but maybe this will cause Clinton to have a millisecond flashback to 2008.
posted by rdr at 6:47 PM on April 28, 2015 [2 favorites]


I actually deanscreamed when I saw this post. I scared the shit out of the dog.
posted by furnace.heart at 6:48 PM on April 28, 2015 [41 favorites]


I want him to win and be elected.
The rest of you are just tool boxing for that criminal Clinton.
posted by clavdivs at 6:50 PM on April 28, 2015 [7 favorites]


"Goddammit," whispered Hillary to no one in particular.

Give 'em hell, Bernie!
posted by bstreep at 6:51 PM on April 28, 2015 [6 favorites]


Wow. I hope he forces the other candidates to debate issues they'd all rather not.
posted by flippant at 6:52 PM on April 28, 2015 [47 favorites]




I agree that he has no chance in a general election (nor of winning the primary), but I'd vote for him with pleasure over Clinton.
posted by Dip Flash at 6:56 PM on April 28, 2015 [2 favorites]


If nothing else, a Socialist Sentor running in a presidential election could be an excellent bellwether of things to come.
posted by bstreep at 6:59 PM on April 28, 2015 [2 favorites]


This is sort of ideal for Clinton, isn't it? She'll get to play the sensible centrist in the primaries, which will give her center-right credibility once she has to run against the GOP candidate.

Meanwhile, the real liberals have someone to be energized over early on so they won't stay out of the election and will cross over to her once the primaries are over.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 7:04 PM on April 28, 2015 [27 favorites]


If nothing else, a Socialist Sentor running in a presidential election could be an excellent bellwether of things to come.

Yeah, but socialist senators are hard enough to come by, let alone socialist comptrollers, school board members, police chiefs, governors…There's just not enough of them around.
posted by furnace.heart at 7:04 PM on April 28, 2015 [1 favorite]


I don't know that this actually hurts Clinton, or whoever ends up being the D's candidate (okay, probably Hillary). Going into the election as having been unopposed in the primaries doesn't look good, and this will drum up more interest in the D contest. We'll just have to wait and see.

And does anybody know/remember if this is the first Jewish guy as a major party Presidential candidate? It seems like there should have been at least one previously in the primaries, by I'm not remembering one. I remember how it felt pretty cool to vote for a Black guy; it'll be fun to vote for a Jew who isn't Lieberman.
posted by benito.strauss at 7:07 PM on April 28, 2015 [1 favorite]


Privatize the risk, socialize the profit!
posted by Poldo at 7:10 PM on April 28, 2015 [10 favorites]


All it proves is that the Democrats have their own tiny clown car. He might "shift the conversation" a bit during the primaries, but that's about it. At best, the right wing might unload on him rather than Hilary.
posted by SPrintF at 7:12 PM on April 28, 2015


TBH, that's a pretty good best-case.

Running Hillary without credible opposition in the primary would be a disaster.
posted by schmod at 7:17 PM on April 28, 2015 [5 favorites]


And does anybody know/remember if this is the first Jewish guy as a major party Presidential candidate?

Do you mean other than Lieberman? He ran in 2004. Nobody else is coming to mind.

posted by Banknote of the year at 7:18 PM on April 28, 2015


I swore after 2008 that I would never again darken the doorstep of a political committee, but I will personally walk the mean streets of Teahadist Texas to hand out Bernie flyers. Yes I will.
posted by dejah420 at 7:19 PM on April 28, 2015 [27 favorites]


HELLOOOOO OVERTON WINDOW!
posted by rmd1023 at 7:23 PM on April 28, 2015 [44 favorites]


Arlen Specter ran for the GOP nomination for President in the '96 election, though he bowed out pretty early on. He was Jewish.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 7:23 PM on April 28, 2015 [3 favorites]


Yes. Yes. Yes. I don't think there's a chance he can win but I sure as fuck think and hope things will be way more interesting because of him between now and primary/convention time.
posted by fluffy battle kitten at 7:27 PM on April 28, 2015


Lieberman was for Veep. I had forgotten about Specter.
posted by benito.strauss at 7:29 PM on April 28, 2015


All it proves is that the Democrats have their own tiny clown car.

What does this mean?
posted by Greg Nog at 7:32 PM on April 28, 2015 [1 favorite]


People had been referring to the large number of Republican presidential hopefuls, all of whom appear to be clowns, as the "clown car."
posted by Foosnark at 7:38 PM on April 28, 2015 [1 favorite]


In 2008 and 2012 we elected an African-American President. Right now the field for the 2016 contains a woman, a Cuban-American (who is also Catholic), a Socialist (who is also Jewish), and a Canadian1. Several other women and an Indian-American are at least mulling it over.

While we have much to do, we have also come very far.

1OK, not really.
posted by Frayed Knot at 7:39 PM on April 28, 2015 [4 favorites]


This is great news. Personally, I'm no longer dreading the Democratic Primary (as much). As CheeseDigestsAll says, Clinton can play this to her advantage in the general election, and having no or little substantive opposition in the primary is less than ideal for her campaign in the general. I've no expectation of Sanders getting very far, though he's got my vote. His presence won't result in any massive shift in the way issues are discussed (or evaded); however, he will bring attention to the progressive issues many Americans support—attention too often missing in presidential elections.
posted by audi alteram partem at 7:40 PM on April 28, 2015


Fucking. A.
posted by spitbull at 7:41 PM on April 28, 2015 [1 favorite]


The only presidential candidate for whom I've ever voted is Ralph Nader. I stopped voting years ago and have wondered if anything could ever make me vote again. This will do it.
posted by koavf at 7:45 PM on April 28, 2015 [3 favorites]


oh thank goodness
posted by likeatoaster at 7:45 PM on April 28, 2015


1OK, not really

Uh, only because he renounced his citizenship.
posted by waitingtoderail at 7:46 PM on April 28, 2015 [2 favorites]


From the WaPo link:
The senator’s political adviser will be Tad Devine, one of the Democratic Party’s leading consultants and a former high-level campaign aide to Al Gore, John F. Kerry and Michael Dukakis.
Well gee wilikers. Tad Devine sure has quite the record of success there, doesn't he? I guess it's good that Sanders has a real insider, but how many times do you have to strike out before they take you out of the regular rotation?
posted by dis_integration at 7:54 PM on April 28, 2015 [12 favorites]


Obama started out with vastly more support than Sanders will. But online fundraising and social media campaigning are far more capable now than they were in 2007. If Sanders can raise $50mm by June 30 and $250mm more by September 30 -- which is $50 from each of 6 million people -- it's on.
posted by MattD at 7:57 PM on April 28, 2015 [1 favorite]


Christ on sale, it's not even 2016 yet.
posted by boo_radley at 7:59 PM on April 28, 2015 [1 favorite]


Most people said the same about a black guy named Obama, though.


I'm not sure if this is supposed to mean being black is as big a liability as being a cranky old socialist, but Obama was pretty well embraced by the party establishment, on top of being young and talented, without a huge record to defend*. Sanders is too old to win or even be taken seriously, he actually calls out and threatens what supports mainstream politics and has done so for years, without a ton of success or a groundswell of support. This is where Elizabeth Warren would be a genuinely exciting candidate, she has momentum that Sanders just doesn't have. That having been said, I'm all for people getting into the race who aren't afraid to talk about things that really matter. This hard core big government liberal will never vote for Clinton unless she has some real answers to the questions a Sanders candidacy would raise, particularly about campaign finances when the Koch brothers are staging the America's Next President reality show with a billion dollar prize.

*I like Obama, and I really don't think people cut him enough slack given the completely broken system he has to work in. I genuinely think he understands what is broken and had made the calculation (for right or wrong) towards incremental rather than revolutionary change. There are lots of valid criticisms for sure, but we pretty much are out of Iraq, we haven't invaded any new countries, the economy is certainly better than it was in 2008, gays are getting married, pot is legal, and everyone has health care. That's some pretty serious incremental change. I'm not sure Hillary Clinton shares the understanding that the people who get paid well in government do not necessarily have the best ideas for fixing things and playing for the home team isn't enough to get my vote. So, yay Sanders.
posted by Slarty Bartfast at 8:04 PM on April 28, 2015 [11 favorites]


He has my vote.

And my axe!
posted by charred husk at 8:04 PM on April 28, 2015 [36 favorites]


And my guillotine. I mean, to use BY him, not ON him!

This thread is turning my cynicism on its head. It's weird to see so many people cheering this. I guess I've grown so angry, cynical and bitter that I really didn't see the point, but I guess I can see it from an Overton perspective.

Maybe this will help others decide to jump in and not just let Hillary sweep it as if it's the inevitable next step. I don't doubt that Hillary will do some good things beyond what the Republicans would do, but I am not a fool enough to believe that she would be a good Democrat. Just another plutocrat.
posted by symbioid at 8:14 PM on April 28, 2015 [4 favorites]


Was Mark Penn taken?
posted by persona au gratin at 8:14 PM on April 28, 2015 [1 favorite]


Lieberman was for Veep.

He ran in the primaries as a presidential candidate though.
posted by threeants at 8:17 PM on April 28, 2015 [2 favorites]


Hey, you want my idea of must-see TV? Hilary Clinton in a discussion (not a debate, a civilized discussion) with Juan Cole, Neil deGrasse Tyson and Paul Krugman about American foreign policy, climate change and the economy. Educate and illuminate! Set a real vision!

A "debate" between Hilary and Bernie is just the kind of empty political gesture I'd expect from the Republicans.
posted by SPrintF at 8:20 PM on April 28, 2015 [2 favorites]


A "debate" between Hilary and Bernie is just the kind of empty political gesture I'd expect from the Republicans.

In what way? How do you see the course of this debate going?
posted by Greg Nog at 8:26 PM on April 28, 2015 [1 favorite]


I had Devine confused with Ted Levine for a second there.
posted by raysmj at 8:40 PM on April 28, 2015


Wait, a few people were saying that Clinton (67) was too old to run. This guy is 6 years older than Clinton. If elected, Sanders would be 4 years older than even Ronald Reagan when he assumed office.

I guess the only hope for the youth vote is that whippersnapper Martin O'Malley, at the upstart age of 52! (Which is pretty much Obama's age RIGHT NOW!)
posted by FJT at 8:46 PM on April 28, 2015 [1 favorite]


furnace.heart: "Yeah, but socialist senators are hard enough to come by, let alone socialist comptrollers, school board members, police chiefs, governors…There's just not enough of them around."

I think one of the most interesting things about Milwaukee is that it's the only American city to elect three Socialist mayors.
posted by Chrysostom at 8:54 PM on April 28, 2015 [5 favorites]


I just talked to 3 other female friends who are all progressive and from* Arkansas, and we're all planning to vote for Sanders in the primary. We'd all like to vote for a woman, but the thing is, we want to vote for a progressive woman, and we don't think Hillary is it. (None of us expect Sanders to win, but we'd love to send a message to the Democrats about what we think of their Republican-lite-with-rainbow-pins B.S.)


* for various values of "from"
posted by wintersweet at 9:06 PM on April 28, 2015 [3 favorites]


Huh, still think I'll register Republican this time around to vote in their primary. Seems more fun than a pointless Sanders vote this time.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:34 PM on April 28, 2015


A "debate" between Hilary and Bernie is just the kind of empty political gesture I'd expect from the Republicans.

In what way? How do you see the course of this debate going?


I have no way of knowing Sanders's mind. Is he sincere? Um, no. No sane person thinks he's really running for president. Does he have a book deal in the works, or is he an honest kook like Paul Rand? Don't know, don't care. He's a joke candidate, like Herman Cain.

I just want the next President Clinton to get shit done. I'm an old man, and it pains me that so many things I thought were settled (civil rights, respect for women and their control over their lives and bodies, economic equality, fucking science!) are being undermined by pointless political theater.

What is the point of a "debate" of Clinton vs Sanders? Why not an intelligent discussion real issues with the candidate, rather than this endless round of arguments about Clinton being noticed at Chipotle? Aren't you tired of this yet? Don't you want something better?
posted by SPrintF at 9:49 PM on April 28, 2015


Arlen Specter ran for the GOP nomination for President in the '96 election, though he bowed out pretty early on. He was Jewish.

I imagine he still is.
posted by el io at 9:50 PM on April 28, 2015 [3 favorites]


I just want the next President Clinton to get shit done. I'm an old man, and it pains me that so many things I thought were settled (civil rights, respect for women and their control over their lives and bodies, economic equality, fucking science!) are being undermined by pointless political theater.

In that case, you should pay more attention to your next legislative and gubernatorial elections. Those are going to be a lot more important for the issues that you care about, and liberals have been getting slaughtered in these elections for the past 20+ years due to voter apathy, uninspiring candidates, and low turnout.
posted by schmod at 9:55 PM on April 28, 2015 [19 favorites]


Sigh. You know, if Leahy ran at least I'd respect that. But Dean? Sanders? Come on, Vermont. This is not the best use of our resources.
posted by maryr at 9:59 PM on April 28, 2015


(Yeah, I know, this has absolutely nothing to do with Vermont.)
posted by maryr at 9:59 PM on April 28, 2015


Arlen Specter ran for the GOP nomination for President in the '96 election, though he bowed out pretty early on. He was Jewish.

I imagine he still is.


A specter is haunting Pennsylvania? the specter of... Arlen!
posted by ennui.bz at 9:59 PM on April 28, 2015 [1 favorite]


Cynics can suck it long, suck it hard, and just plain suck it. He may not win, but support for him sends a clear and unequivocal message to Hillary and to the Democrat establishment that all of our votes are not to be taken for granted.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 10:03 PM on April 28, 2015 [14 favorites]


SHE
VOTED
FOR THE
WAR
posted by roll truck roll at 10:13 PM on April 28, 2015 [19 favorites]


Sure, vote for Sanders if you want. He's completely unelectable but, hey, that never stopped anybody.
posted by Justinian at 10:14 PM on April 28, 2015 [1 favorite]


Don't know, don't care. He's a joke candidate, like Herman Cain.

This doesn’t seem a valid comparison. Cain was a Burger King/Godfather's Pizza executive, who as far as I can tell never has been elected to anything. Sanders has been getting elected consistently for almost 35 years, first as mayor of Burlington, and then Vermont representative and senator (the last time with 71% of the vote). Granted, Vermont is not the rest of the U.S., but there’s no doubt Sanders knows how to run a political campaign.
posted by LeLiLo at 10:24 PM on April 28, 2015 [19 favorites]


>Sure, vote for Sanders if you want. He's completely unelectable but, hey, that never stopped anybody.


It's the primary. At least let them pretend their vote matters for a little while longer.
posted by Drinky Die at 10:25 PM on April 28, 2015 [2 favorites]


He may be as unelectable as Herman Cain, but he is in no way 'a joke candidate.' He's not running to promote a damn book - he's running because he thinks someone ought to run to the left of Clinton in order to inject some actual liberal life into the debates, and he's right. I've got no illusions, he ain't winning shit, but he'll get people talking about important issues that would otherwise get no air time.
posted by showbiz_liz at 10:26 PM on April 28, 2015 [39 favorites]


My vote matters, that's why I cast it in line with my ethics. It's people who vote to win who throw their votes away.
posted by rhizome at 11:00 PM on April 28, 2015 [15 favorites]


1OK, not really

Uh, only because he renounced his citizenship.


Good riddance, eh.
posted by chapps at 11:08 PM on April 28, 2015 [1 favorite]


If the NDP takes alberta, and Bernie wins the Democratic candidacy... the world will tilt.
posted by chapps at 11:09 PM on April 28, 2015 [3 favorites]


Huh, still think I'll register Republican this time around to vote in their primary.

I live in Va and am registered as unaffiliated, which lets me vote in the republican primary. That's how I can honestly tell people that I voted for John McCain. Then I watch their jaw drop and have to explain it was during the 2000 primary when I was so offended by Bush's race baiting push polls that I had to go vote against the smirking asshole.
posted by peeedro at 11:12 PM on April 28, 2015 [1 favorite]


Sure, vote for Sanders if you want. He's completely unelectable but, hey, that never stopped anybody.

If he's unelectable there's little harm in voting for him in the primaries.
posted by aubilenon at 11:27 PM on April 28, 2015 [6 favorites]


Sure, vote for Sanders if you want. He's completely unelectable but, hey, that never stopped anybody.

The primaries are for voting your conscience. The general is for voting among lesser evils.

And really, look who the democratic nominee is going to be facing. You think Bernie couldn't crush Ted Cruz? A limp dishrag could crush Ted Fucking Cruz.

Christ. He's the only reason Hillary is the presumptive winner.

Also, who can I get to take my bet on Hillary winning? I want to make this bet ASAP so I can get the best odds.
posted by clarknova at 11:42 PM on April 28, 2015 [4 favorites]


Spite's a weird thing. I'm tempted to vote in the primaries for, I don't know, some anti-choice Blue Dog Democrat, just to irritate some of the people in this thread. I won't, because I really like Saunders and would love to see Clinton be forced to give clear support to his positions, but spite is so tempting.
posted by benito.strauss at 11:53 PM on April 28, 2015 [2 favorites]


CLINTON-SAUNDERS 2016
[head explodes]
posted by benzenedream at 12:16 AM on April 29, 2015 [1 favorite]


Wait, a few people were saying that Clinton (67) was too old to run. This guy is 6 years older than Clinton.

Well as you know Bob, given that on the average men live much longer than women, Sanders has just reached the age of golden dignity. Clinton on the other hand, is OLD.
posted by happyroach at 12:23 AM on April 29, 2015


You think Bernie couldn't crush Ted Cruz? A limp dishrag could crush Ted Fucking Cruz.

I'm not sure whether or not he could crush Ted Cruz. I know he couldn't crush Jeb Bush.
posted by Justinian at 12:48 AM on April 29, 2015 [2 favorites]


USA! USA! USA!

**Waves flag**
posted by ethansr at 12:48 AM on April 29, 2015 [1 favorite]


I have no way of knowing Sanders's mind. Is he sincere? Um, no.
...
Don't know, don't care. He's a joke candidate


He's a fucking senator dude
posted by Greg Nog at 1:19 AM on April 29, 2015 [31 favorites]


He's not only a senator... he's been one of the few senators who has consistently spoken truth in the midst of a constant swirling maelstrom of pandering political bullshit for decades.

There's no way he could win the presidency, but having him in the primary election is one of the best things I've heard about what is going to be an otherwise tedious 20 months. The supposed inevitability of Hillary has been pissing me off for basically 2 years.

What we need is another Dem primary candidate who can come out from between HRC and Bernie to claim the nomination who is actually 1) progressive and 2) electable.
posted by hippybear at 1:24 AM on April 29, 2015 [11 favorites]


I don't understand calling Sanders a joke candidate. The man is a serious politician. He has no chance of winning but that doesn't make him less serious.
posted by Justinian at 1:39 AM on April 29, 2015 [17 favorites]


SPrintF: I have no way of knowing Sanders's mind. Is he sincere? Um, no. No sane person thinks he's really running for president. Does he have a book deal in the works, or is he an honest kook like Paul Rand? Don't know, don't care.
Then you really don't know Bernie Sanders at all. But if you think a book deal is the measure of insincerity, then fine: Hillary has a book deal, Sanders does not.*

* unless you count the publication of Sanders' epic 8.5 hour filibuster decrying the extension of the Bush tax cuts and all it symbolized: the bankrupting of the middle class, corporate greed, and the impotence and corruption of today. But it doesn't get much more sincere than Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.

Sanders is easily one of the most sincere people in Washington. That's a big part of why he's not considered a serious contender. The Clintons on the other hand...

Sanders' top contributors are unions. Hillary Clinton's top contributors are the banks and accounting firms who brought American and the world one financial crisis after another.

Sanders is a socialist. His entire career has focused on improving the lives of working class Americans and the poor. Hillary only started talking about income inequality to neutralize Elizabeth Warren.

From Clinton's top 5 campaign contributors:
1. Citigroup - e.g. $7 billion in fines for mortgage fraud.
2. Goldman Sachs - e.g. How GS Helped Greece to Mask its True Debt (and is now jeopardizing the entire Eurozone).
4. JPMorgan Chase - e.g. $9 billion settlement for white collar crime.
5. Morgan Stanley - e.g. $2.9 settlement for mortgage fraud contributing to the housing bubble.
You get the idea. American banks paid over $130 billion in fines for complicity in the mortgage meltdown. The "Too Big to Fail" banks are bigger than ever.

The Clintons are a banking family.

Bill Clinton played a major role in creating the financial crisis of the last decade. He signed the law dismantling Glass-Steagal as well as the the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which exempted credit-default swaps from regulation.

Bill Clinton's foundation received over $81 million in donations from HSBC bank clients alone.

Chelsea Clinton worked for a hedge fund, and her husband now runs a hedge fund. And, as above, Hillary is already owned by the big banks.

Campaign corruption
According to a Princeton study, the US is no longer a democracy, America is an oligarchy. And the Clintons own much of the blame.

Bill pioneered the exploitation of loopholes in campaign finance regulations. And Hillary opposes meaningful campaign finance reform. From Sanford Horwitt’s biography of Russ Feingold:
“Hillary Clinton was livid. Her face turned red and her angry words were aimed directly at Russ Feingold, the junior senator from Wisconsin. 'You are not living in the real world,’ she told him in front of about 20 of their Democratic Senate colleagues...”
The "real world” Hillary lives in is one where Senators look for loopholes to emasculate the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform.
SPrintF: What is the point of a "debate" of Clinton vs Sanders? Why not an intelligent discussion real issues with the candidate, rather than this endless round of arguments about Clinton being noticed at Chipotle? Aren't you tired of this yet? Don't you want something better?
You should welcome a challenger, if only so there will be a spotlight on the debates. If Hillary has no challenger, most of the attention will focus on the Republican primaries.

Also, Sanders will give voice to truly progressive issues like income inequality, banking reform, universal single-payer health care, campaign finance reform, safeguarding social security, etc.
posted by Davenhill at 2:15 AM on April 29, 2015 [82 favorites]


Running mate. Running mate. Running mate.
posted by zardoz at 2:34 AM on April 29, 2015


Dear god no.
posted by hippybear at 2:36 AM on April 29, 2015


dis_integration: "A bona fide socialist?"
No. Sanders is a social democrat, not a socialist. Yes, I know the distinction is lost on (and doesn't matter for) 99% of Americans.
posted by brokkr at 2:53 AM on April 29, 2015 [11 favorites]


I was just wondering why there's news about Hillary's more-progressive-than-I-expected positions. Great, pull that overton window back where it belongs!
posted by nat at 3:23 AM on April 29, 2015 [2 favorites]


So, for those of you who are all like "now the actual issues are going to be talked about in the Democratic primary debate and elsewhere!", I have a question: the last competitive Democratic primary had at least one relatively liberal candidate, Kucinich (maybe two if you count Gravel). How did those candidates alter the public debate in any meaningful way, and how is this time going to be similar/different? I have the sense that no amount of liberalism can derail the constant "who among the well funded candidates is going to win?" breathless horserace coverage from the networks... even if Kucinich stakes out positions that sound radical to most Americans, it's like a tree falling in the forrest. I'd like to be proven wrong.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 3:51 AM on April 29, 2015 [2 favorites]


Anything the pulls the party left is bad for winning the general election. I care more about winning the general election than I care about anything else.

a progressive presidential candidate is a lose lose situation. Indeed it actually allows a republican who is further the right a viable shot at winning.
posted by JPD at 4:05 AM on April 29, 2015 [1 favorite]


This will get me to vote in a primary for the first time in my life. This makes me think maybe there's actually some hope for the Democratic party.
posted by nangar at 4:43 AM on April 29, 2015


Anything the pulls the party left is bad for winning the general election.

1. How do you know this?

2. Anything that pulls the party right is bad for the country.
posted by Lemurrhea at 4:47 AM on April 29, 2015 [1 favorite]


Anything that will pull the corporatist wing of the Democrats progressive-ward is a good thing.
posted by Renoroc at 4:50 AM on April 29, 2015 [3 favorites]


And really, look who the democratic nominee is going to be facing. You think Bernie couldn't crush Ted Cruz? A limp dishrag could crush Ted Fucking Cruz.
Ted Cruz isn't going to be the Republican nominee. A better question would be whether Sanders can beat Scott Walker, who genuinely could be the Republican nominee, and I don't think the answer to that is yes. But even that's not a good question, because Sanders isn't going to be the nominee, either.
Anything the pulls the party left is bad for winning the general election.
I actually don't think that's the way it works, for what it's worth. I don't think that voters make a rational choice based purely on the candidate's stance on issues, and they're often motivated by factors that have more to do with perception of the candidate as a person than by where they stand on a left-right spectrum. (In my state, that works to the benefit of Republicans, who are very out-of-step with voters on economic issues but who do a better job projecting the image of being trustworthy, regular folks.) I'm further not sure that Sanders's entry is going to pull Clinton to the left, but we'll see. I actually think you could make a case that anything that adds excitement to the primaries works in Clinton's favor, because there's a real risk that the whole thing could seem like a coronation, which is not good for her. I think a competitive (or even slightly-competitive-seeming) primary process is actually good for the eventual Democrat.

Anyway, Sanders has announced that he's running in the Democratic primary but not becoming a Democrat, and people should still refer to him as an Independent. I think that means that he's going to have a very hard road in Iowa, unless he can really motivate some people who have previously not been involved in electoral politics.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 4:55 AM on April 29, 2015 [4 favorites]


There is Vermont. and there are the other 49 states.
posted by Postroad at 4:57 AM on April 29, 2015 [2 favorites]


Does Iowa have open primaries?
posted by nangar at 4:58 AM on April 29, 2015


Iowa has caucuses. They're not technically open, but you can switch party on the day for the day if you want to caucus for a different party. And it's not rare at all for that to happen. A plurality of Iowa voters are registered no-party, and a lot of them choose a party affiliation strategically to caucus.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:00 AM on April 29, 2015


No. Sanders is a social democrat, not a socialist.

You mean he's not a Soviet-style socialist? What do you mean exactly? Here, Sanders calls himself a "democratic socialist". How he interprets that exactly I'm not entirely sure, but the generally accepted meaning is: socialist economy, democratic governance (unlike Soviet style socialism/communism, which means: dictatorship of the proletariat).
posted by dis_integration at 5:21 AM on April 29, 2015 [3 favorites]


It's going to be really awkward when Bill Clinton announces that he's accepted Sander's offer to be Vice President. (You may not be elected a third time, but nothing says you can't ascend to the Presidency ALA Lyndon Johnson).
posted by spock at 5:25 AM on April 29, 2015


And really, look who the democratic nominee is going to be facing. You think Bernie couldn't crush Ted Cruz? A limp dishrag could crush Ted Fucking Cruz.

Don't Misunderestimate 'im.

I think something all this inevitability of Clinton stuff is missing is how much the right wing hates her. Sure, they hate Obama a lot, and they've been terrible, but they hated Bill Clinton just as much. They impeached the man on the flimsiest of charges, after all, and he was doing stuff that was, by and large, good for their corporate overlords.

Now you have what is essential Clinton, but also a woman, which is nearly as bad as a black man to the wingnuts. And as people here are aptly demonstrating, Clinton just isn't going to have the same kind of enthusiasm and momentum among Democrats as Obama did in his run.

I think this is going to be a very dangerous election.
posted by Caduceus at 5:55 AM on April 29, 2015 [5 favorites]


Arlen Specter ran for the GOP nomination for President in the '96 election, though he bowed out pretty early on. He was Jewish.

I imagine he still is.


The only thing Arlen Specter is in the present tense is "deceased."
posted by DirtyOldTown at 5:55 AM on April 29, 2015 [2 favorites]


He's completely unelectable but, hey, that never stopped anybody.

Electability is not the only reason why people support and vote for candidates in presidential primaries.

One way Democrats can increase engagement and turnout among voters likely to support a Democratic nominee is to foster primary that welcomes reasonable discussion of policy disagreements.

Anything the pulls the party left is bad for winning the general election.

I disagree per reasoning outlined earlier in the thread. Also, the idea that "left" ideas aren't supported is part of the decades-long conservative media framing project and isn't reflective of voters' actual policy preferences.
posted by audi alteram partem at 6:02 AM on April 29, 2015 [9 favorites]


I feel like I often play the role of eeevil Democratic-party realist on metafilter political threads, so that's the hat I'm wearing when I say this: if you think Bernie Sanders would be a good president, I can think of literally no reason not to support him as vigorously as you can. I can see no way that a Sanders campaign is going to hurt the Democrats in the long run or hasten the terrible Republican apocalypse. I actually think that the Democrats could probably benefit from some grassroots, ideologically-driven opposition to Hillary Clinton, and anything that makes the primaries more competitive and/or interesting is good for the Democrats. Seriously: from a strategic point of view, this is not like voting for Nader in Florida in 2000. Hillary Clinton can take care of herself. You should call up the Sanders campaign the morning after he announces and ask how you can help.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:18 AM on April 29, 2015 [22 favorites]


I've had a 'Bernie Sanders for President' bumper sticker on my car for years, and it's finally not a gag?
posted by Sphinx at 6:20 AM on April 29, 2015 [3 favorites]


Just for disclosure, AAC, aren't you working on the Clinton campaign?
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 6:21 AM on April 29, 2015


Nope. I met with them, but I haven't signed on with them, and I haven't decided what I'm doing this go round. I'm not feeling super inspired at the moment, and I think I may wait until the general to get more involved.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:25 AM on April 29, 2015 [1 favorite]


Ah, OK. Your perspective is appreciated; I was just curious.
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 6:27 AM on April 29, 2015


Some excerpts from an interview in 2014 where Sanders talked about running for president:
If you ask me now what one of the major accomplishments of my political life is, it is that I helped double the voter turnout in Burlington, Vermont. I did that because people who had given up on the political process understood that I was fighting for working families ... The result is that large numbers of people who previously had not participated in the political process got involved. And that’s what we have to do for the whole country.

I think one of the great tragedies that we face today politically ... is that most people have given up on the political process. They understand the political deck is stacked against them. They think there is no particular reason for them to come out and vote—and they don’t.

One of the things that I find most disturbing—in fact, beyond comprehension—is that the Democrats now lose by a significant number the votes of white working-class people. How can that be? ... It happens because the Democrats have not been strong in making it clear which side they are on, not been strong in taking on Wall Street and corporate America ...

What’s most important is this idea of a political revolution—rallying the working families of this country around a vision that speaks to their needs

... when I talk about a political revolution, what I am referring to is the need to do more than just win the next election. It’s about creating a situation where we are involving millions of people in the process who are not now involved, and changing the nature of media so they are talking about issues that reflect the needs and the pains that so many of our people are currently feeling.

Essentially, what a political revolution means is that we organize and educate and create grassroots movements, which we certainly do not have right now.
posted by nangar at 6:56 AM on April 29, 2015 [10 favorites]


In the interview I just linked to he also talks a bit about why he's not going the third party route.
posted by nangar at 7:03 AM on April 29, 2015 [1 favorite]


One of the things that I find most disturbing—in fact, beyond comprehension—is that the Democrats now lose by a significant number the votes of white working-class people. How can that be?

Republicans offer policies that appeal to their racial fear and resentment.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:05 AM on April 29, 2015 [4 favorites]




they hated Bill Clinton just as much. They impeached the man on the flimsiest of charges, after all, and he was doing stuff that was, by and large, good for their corporate overlords.

Sometimes I wonder if the flimsy charges and extra theater like impeachment are a *consequence* of cooperation with corporate overlords -- when the Democrats claim some of the territory of serving moneyed interests, the only easily sold differentiations left are social issues and made-up stuff. Which is what we see a lot of.

Clinton's impeachment was some of both, combined with an aggressive discovery process (and, unfortunately, just enough not-completely-upright behavior on Clinton's part).
posted by weston at 7:13 AM on April 29, 2015 [2 favorites]


HELL YEAH
posted by latkes at 7:14 AM on April 29, 2015 [1 favorite]


People seem (including me!) to be excited about Sanders in a way nobody is ever going to be excited about Hillary. I think he's going to make this an interesting fight.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:22 AM on April 29, 2015 [2 favorites]




I'm very excited by this and will be donating to the campaign tonight when I get home. Mainly I'm continually frustrated by the obvious core issues that are never discussed seriously by mainstream candidates. Hillary has so far given pretty good lip service on economic issues, but is in bed with the big banks and investment houses so has a pretty fundamental conflict of interest there. If Sanders gets some coverage in debates and other media events where he can speak the truth on issues that matter, I think he'll come across much better then a scripted, awkward (to me) Clinton, and he's way more grounded and less kooky than someone like Kucinich.
posted by freecellwizard at 7:58 AM on April 29, 2015


People seem (including me!) to be excited about Sanders in a way nobody is ever going to be excited about Hillary. I think he's going to make this an interesting fight.

Nah. There are important differences between Metafilter and Democratic primary voters and activists. I would say especially in the early states but it at least looks like New York will be an early state this cycle.

If the debates are before Iowa and New Hampshire, he'll participate in those, which is probably his actual point in running. But he might well withdraw before the Iowa caucuses actually take place, especially if there aren't many more debates scheduled. If not, he's very likely to have to withdraw or effectively stop campaigning after New Hampshire, and in the unlikely event that he makes it to South Carolina in February he's virtually certain to get creamed there.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:00 AM on April 29, 2015 [2 favorites]


Nah. There are important differences between Metafilter and Democratic primary voters and activists. I would say especially in the early states but it at least looks like New York will be an early state this cycle.

I was talking about Democratic voters, and not Metafilter, though. At least the social change activists that I know. Anyway, yes, New York is the first primary after the caucuses, which is pretty awesome.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:06 AM on April 29, 2015




the last competitive Democratic primary had at least one relatively liberal candidate, Kucinich (maybe two if you count Gravel). How did those candidates alter the public debate in any meaningful way, and how is this time going to be similar/different?

The biggest difference I see is the number of candidates. Kucinich ran in 2008 and 2004, and both times the Democratic field was relatively large. He got lost in the minor-candidate shuffle. In this year's primaries, we've got Clinton, Sanders, O'Malley and maybe Biden or Webb. So that's less competition for space in the debates, in pundit commentary, in the wallets of donors, etc.

And the media is going to look for some angle to spin on the primaries. Because "yup, Clinton still has it in the bag" makes for boring TV. Combine that with how Sanders and O'Malley are both coming after Clinton from the left, and there's your hook: "Is Clinton liberal enough for Democrats these days?"

2004 and 2008 both had another candidate, with a higher profile than Kucinich, pulling Dems to the left: Dean, then Obama. And Kucinich was absolutely to the left of both of them, but Dean and Obama were progressive enough to placate the restless left. And maybe the same thing will happen this year, with O'Malley playing Howard Dean to Sanders' Dennis Kucinich. But I still think the smaller field gives Sanders a better shot.
posted by Banknote of the year at 8:53 AM on April 29, 2015 [6 favorites]


The DNC is probably making lots of phone calls to widen the field now.
posted by rhizome at 9:30 AM on April 29, 2015 [1 favorite]




Question: What could I do to help organize or volunteer in Washington State? Specifically Seattle.

He has no volunteer info I can find and there is no local apparatus I can think of...
posted by lattiboy at 10:10 AM on April 29, 2015 [1 favorite]


Iowa has caucuses. They're not technically open, but you can switch party on the day for the day if you want to caucus for a different party. And it's not rare at all for that to happen. A plurality of Iowa voters are registered no-party, and a lot of them choose a party affiliation strategically to caucus.

The caucus was one of three things I miss about living in Iowa. The other was Kent park. If you're an Iowan I suggest making the most of both.
posted by clarknova at 10:33 AM on April 29, 2015


Yes, but what was the third thing you miss?
posted by Chrysostom at 10:36 AM on April 29, 2015 [3 favorites]


Bad news regarding Sanders running.

"Integrity Disqualifies Sanders for White House", eh? Well at least they come right out and say it.

Translation: "Integrity Disqualifies Sanders for Support From Corporate Owned Media Like the New Yorker".


Yes, but what was the third thing you miss?

None of your beeswax.
posted by clarknova at 10:39 AM on April 29, 2015 [4 favorites]


Borowitz is satire.
posted by rhizome at 10:42 AM on April 29, 2015 [6 favorites]


Interesting. I hope he wins the primary.
posted by corb at 10:43 AM on April 29, 2015


What could I do to help organize or volunteer in Washington State?

His campaign hasn't officially started yet. Hopefully, they'll have some stuff up soon.

(I hope his campaign doesn't botch this and leave would-be volunteers with nothing to do.)
posted by nangar at 10:44 AM on April 29, 2015 [1 favorite]


Borowitz is attempts to be satire.
posted by Jahaza at 10:51 AM on April 29, 2015 [4 favorites]


rhizome: "Borowitz is satire."

Yeah, that is a "humor" column. You might not have noticed, because Borowitz is excruciatingly un-funny.
posted by Chrysostom at 10:52 AM on April 29, 2015 [6 favorites]


Living out west in Cascadia, I can't say I pay much attention to New England politics; what exactly is it that makes you all so excited about this guy as a candidate for US President? I browsed around on his web site and read the announcement about his candidacy but didn't see anything that seemed out of the ordinary.
posted by Mars Saxman at 11:09 AM on April 29, 2015


I think you can do your own organizing as long as you make it really clear that it's unofficial. Like, if you wanted to do a meet-up for local people who wanted to support Bernie Sanders, you could get together and talk about how psyched you were about Bernie Sanders and then hand all the names and ideas over to the official campaign once they're organized.

Unless you're in or near an early primary state, probably the most helpful thing to do at this point would be fundraising. The Sanders campaign is going to be fueled by small donations, and you can figure out some creative ways to get people to donate small amounts.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 11:11 AM on April 29, 2015 [1 favorite]


Apparently the DNC's front-runner relatively lacking integrity is a sore spot.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 11:11 AM on April 29, 2015 [1 favorite]


what exactly is it that makes you all so excited about this guy as a candidate for US President?

His wikipedia page shows some of his positions on various issues. He is unabashedly progressive/socialist. He's in favor of universal health care. He is not a democrat (although he caucuses with them). He is unabashedly pro-union (not just rhetoric trying to get the votes, he really means it).

Here is an introduction to him by him.
posted by el io at 11:42 AM on April 29, 2015 [1 favorite]


Why don’t you tell me what Hillary Clinton is campaigning on? Do you know? You don’t know and I don’t know and the American people don’t know.
Does Bernie Sanders’ Race for the Democratic Nomination Matter?
posted by adamvasco at 11:47 AM on April 29, 2015


> what exactly is it that makes you all so excited about this guy as a candidate for US President?

One hot day I was walking around San Francisco and stopped off, tired, for lunch. They brought me a glass of water which I gulped down before I noticed that they had squeezed a little fresh lemon into the water. That was the most refreshing glass of water I've ever had. Bernie Sanders is the squeeze of lemon in the 2016 election.
posted by benito.strauss at 12:34 PM on April 29, 2015 [8 favorites]


Bernie Sanders is the squeeze of lemon in the 2016 election.

I would argue, that based on his record and his stated politics* he's the Arnold Palmer of the 2016 election.

*Which would probably change, and mutate if he ever took the office. If dudebro ever got elected, he'd have the same problems as Obama…I mean, lets be real here. Nothing would get done. Ever. Bro would probably have to make some serious ideological concessions just to exist in that world…as does everyone, sorta.
posted by furnace.heart at 12:41 PM on April 29, 2015 [1 favorite]


Please don't call Bernie 'dudebro'.

Thank you.

or 'bro' for that matter.
posted by el io at 12:45 PM on April 29, 2015 [5 favorites]


I only knew Sanders by reputation, I couldn't place his face or speaking style exactly, so I checked out some of the youtube links above. It will be interesting. When reading or on-script he's pretty dull, but impromptu he's a great speaker. I think he reads visually as a little younger than his age, fwiw.

Is the debate process regulated? Can they simply shut him out?
posted by werkzeuger at 12:46 PM on April 29, 2015


Parties set their own rules for the primary debates. The DNC chair specifically said Sanders would be welcomed.
posted by Chrysostom at 12:53 PM on April 29, 2015




I would argue, that based on his record and his stated politics* he's the Arnold Palmer of the 2016 election.

Half lemonade, half iced tea?
posted by maryr at 1:08 PM on April 29, 2015


And the iced-tea is socialism?
posted by box at 1:19 PM on April 29, 2015 [6 favorites]


Half lemonade, half iced tea?

Way better than just water. Or water with a little bit of lemon in it. Its an imperfect analogy to illustrate just how different his politics are, and how he votes. I think it could be argued by his political statements, and how he votes, that he's fundamentally different, and quite extreme than the rest of the Senate; but that doesn't keep him from playing politics and really working within that system…if he didn't, he wouldn't have served as many terms as he has.

In terms of the national race for the nomination, his politics are fundamentally quite different than most other Democratic candidates; he is much more of a leftist (not that far left, but we're talking American politics here…). Like others have mentioned, he's vehemently anti-bank, he's very much pro union, he's for single-payer health care, he makes some pretty bold (sometimes exaggerated) statements about income inequality, he's fairly anti-war and anti-interventionist.

These are, sadly, abnormal things. These are borderline 'crazy' things in American politics, and they really shouldn't be. I hope he helps pull Clinton to the left, along with any other candidates around.

So yeah. Not just lemon in water. Something stronger for sure.
posted by furnace.heart at 1:28 PM on April 29, 2015 [5 favorites]


Living out west in Cascadia, I can't say I pay much attention to New England politics; what exactly is it that makes you all so excited about this guy as a candidate for US President? I browsed around on his web site and read the announcement about his candidacy but didn't see anything that seemed out of the ordinary.

Besides the fact the he's a real, liberal candidate(which obviously goes over well around here), you've got to hear him talk and debate. He's sort of got the Ron Paul thing going on, where even though the media and mainstream political establishment are going to paint him as fringe and crazy he comes across as sincere, passionate, and someone who's fighting for a cause and isn't in it for the politics or the power. He's someone who's easy to like or get excited about even if you aren't quite with him on all his policies. Young people are going to love him, his campaign will have a lot of enthusiasm you won't see from anyone else in the current Democrat lineup.

I think a lot of people also expected the Democratic nomination to basically be a coronation of Hilary with no real liberal or progressive opposition. This potentially changes that up a lot, which is exciting in itself even you're not excited about Bernie
posted by zodballs at 3:17 PM on April 29, 2015 [10 favorites]


(not that far left, but we're talking American politics here…)

A few years ago, when Sanders did three town meetings in Vermont with the Danish ambassador to the U.S., the Danes said that in their country he would be considered slightly to the right of center.
posted by LeLiLo at 3:31 PM on April 29, 2015 [6 favorites]


Clinton's impeachment was some of both, combined with an aggressive discovery process (and, unfortunately, just enough not-completely-upright behavior on Clinton's part).

Well, parts of him at least were completely upright, reportedly.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:36 PM on April 29, 2015


For all of us MeFi librarians, note that Bernie tried to add an amendment to the Patriot Act restricting government surveillance of circulation records:

“I think librarians all over this country are unsung heroes and heroines who are doing a tremendous job, against very difficult odds, because of the nature of the culture in which we live,” Sanders says. “We are moving more and more to an entertainment culture, a sound bite culture, but librarians have maintained, saying, ‘It’s important for the American people to get all kinds of information.’ ”

“I’ve been impressed by the willingness of librarians to go above and beyond the letter of their jobs,” he adds. “You’d expect them to fight for good budgets and jobs, but the librarians did not have to get on board this issue and say that, as librarians, we believe that all Americans should not have the government looking over their shoulder.”
posted by mostly vowels at 5:39 PM on April 29, 2015 [12 favorites]


I don't really get the extensions to the lemon in water analogy, but I did make a batch of Arnold Palmers for my family after reading this thread, and the drinks were really refreshing, so I'm thankful for that.
posted by benito.strauss at 7:19 PM on April 29, 2015 [3 favorites]


I'm still placing my money on Elmer Fudd. Duck season! Wabbit season! Duck season! Wabbit season!
posted by rankfreudlite at 9:19 PM on April 29, 2015


I did make a batch of Arnold Palmers for my family after reading this thread, and the drinks were really refreshing, so I'm thankful for that.

Use sweet tea vodka next time and make Drunken Palmers. They're quite refreshing, too. And by the time you finish your first one, you don't care anymore about whatever it was you needed to be refreshed from.
posted by hippybear at 12:37 AM on April 30, 2015 [3 favorites]


It's official
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 4:51 AM on April 30, 2015 [2 favorites]


Does anyone know why the official website says "Coming 5.26.15"?
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:13 AM on April 30, 2015


Sanders on the Bill Press Show this morning.
posted by nangar at 7:34 AM on April 30, 2015


Live stream of press conference on C-Span, 12:00 EST.
posted by nangar at 8:39 AM on April 30, 2015


There was a user who, when people in past threads mentioned that they'd love Sanders to run for the nomination, was *vehement* that such a thing was completely *impossible*. And it's a little petty, but I kind of hoped they might show up and say, "Oops!" Nothing doing, though, I guess.
posted by Chrysostom at 9:32 AM on April 30, 2015 [1 favorite]




"Use sweet tea vodka next time and make Drunken Palmers. "

That's called a John Daly. Which is mean, but funny.
posted by lattiboy at 10:48 AM on April 30, 2015


Same drink, two different names. That happens.
posted by hippybear at 11:13 AM on April 30, 2015


The John Daly name is much better.
posted by Drinky Die at 11:40 AM on April 30, 2015




"Transcript of the Bernard Sanders 2016 Presidential Announcement Speech"
I believe that in a democracy, what elections are about are serious debates about serious issues, not political gossip, not making campaign soap operas. This is not the Red Sox versus the Yankees. This is the debate over major issues facing the American people.

Honest people, my conservative friends, differ with me. That’s fine. That’s called democracy. It’s a good thing, but I’ve got to hope, and I have to ask the media’s help on this thing: Allow us to discuss the important issues facing the American people. Let’s not get hung up on political soap opera, and all the other aspects of modern campaigns.
posted by audi alteram partem at 1:49 PM on April 30, 2015 [10 favorites]


There was some interesting discussion of Bernie Sanders as an alternative candidate to Clinton back in this thread.
posted by Greg Nog at 4:25 PM on April 30, 2015 [2 favorites]


Exactly the thread I was thinking of, Greg Nog.
posted by Chrysostom at 7:31 PM on April 30, 2015


There are literally millions of voters of voters on the table who are likely not going to go to the polls because establishment politicians do not resonate or excite them. The primaries are where these voters might get engaged. My firm belief is that you if you honestly sat down and had an intimate conversation with every eligible voter in the US right now, gay marriage, single payer health care, reduced military spending, increased money for education, campaign finance limits would resonate strongly with average Americans. Right now is when you can engage these people and make them believe in what's possible. Most of these people already accept that the general election is about one oligarch vs. another oligarch and only a small minority are going to vote, largely along predictable party lines.

In the current MSNBC vs. Fox dominated campaign, single payer health care is dead on arrival, despite this being the correct position that most adults in the U.S. who care about this question support. Get out there, make your opinions known, draft candidates that support your views, ask hard questions. We can always vote for the lesser of two evils at the last minute, but we are far from the last minute right now. Seriously, the American people are far more reasonable than the cable news networks and now is the time to drive the debate.
posted by Slarty Bartfast at 10:44 PM on April 30, 2015 [10 favorites]


> In the current MSNBC vs. Fox dominated campaign ....

I consider about 99% of all media organizations as enemies of the political process in the U.S.
posted by benito.strauss at 10:31 PM on May 1, 2015 [9 favorites]


How Does Bernie Sanders Do It? John Nichols , The Nation, an article about Sanders' campaign strategy in Vermont. Some pull-quotes:
... “Visiting hunting lodges to talk about protecting natural resources for hunting and fishing and establishing a connection with [hunters] was one of the ways that Sanders managed to earn the trust of the predominantly conservative and working-class Northeast Kingdom section of Vermont, which regularly gives Sanders, a self-declared socialist, its hearty support.”

If national Democrats did the same, Sanders suggests, there could be many more progressive Democrats representing rural states. He gets furious at the “swing-state strategies” that target a few competitive states and districts while neglecting the long-term work of building support in “What’s the Matter With Kansas?” areas.
This could be interesting.
posted by nangar at 9:32 AM on May 2, 2015 [8 favorites]




Here, it’s the state law that counts and the state law requires party registration.

As the source article notes, they don't have a leg to stand on since they've already admitted Howard Dean, who was not (and could not be) a Vermont registered Democrat, and George W. Bush, who is not and cannot be a Texas registered Republican, and Al Gore, who was not and could not be a registered Tennessee Democrat.

Because none of those states (among others) have partisan registration at all.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:48 AM on May 5, 2015 [1 favorite]






What're the odds that Sanders ends up the national Green candidate or some such?
posted by maryr at 11:31 AM on May 6, 2015


Sanders seems really focused on using his campaign to get a grass-roots movement organized that can get economically leftist people elected to congress, regardless of the outcome of the primaries. He's sworn off the third party route as unworkable, and he's made it pretty clear that he wants the Democrats to win this election whether or not he's the candidate.
posted by nangar at 12:40 PM on May 6, 2015 [3 favorites]


Sanders seems really focused on using his campaign to get a grass-roots movement organized

This does not work. Ask Jesse Jackson. (For why, see this paper I linked in another thread.)
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 4:35 PM on May 6, 2015




Or, you know, Bernie could win the nomination and the presidency. I think it's way too far out from either election to declare the outcomes certain, and I think it's unfair to Bernie to accuse him of bad motives when he has frequently in the past done things that were "bad for Democrats" because he believed them to be the right thing to do. Now, I have been wrong before (I was a Dean supporter and an Edwards supporter, so I really know how to pick candidates, clearly), but for now I am taking Bernie at his word until he gives me some reason to do otherwise.
posted by hydropsyche at 6:24 AM on May 7, 2015


In fairness, the Jackson campaign failed for a whooooole lot of reasons. And grassroots campaigning was a huge part of what got Obama elected in 2008.
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 6:37 AM on May 7, 2015 [2 favorites]


Yes, that's the point -- it's possible to use the grass roots for an electoral objective, but impossible to use the election to enhance the power of the grass roots as an independent political force. People claimed the Jackson campaign were doing the later, and they were wrong. Obama did the former, and, yea, behold the wreckage of the independent left in America.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 7:02 AM on May 7, 2015 [1 favorite]


Then how should the independent left organize? Through vanguardism? It seems that if the independent left wants to take an anti-corporatist, direct democratic approach to being a political force, it can't really start anywhere but from the grassroot.
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 7:17 AM on May 7, 2015


Ah wait I think I get you: the key point being "use the election to enhance the power", yeah? If so, then yes I agree. It shouldn't begin and end with election day.
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 7:20 AM on May 7, 2015


Well, I think we both agree that grassroots organizing is essential to any left political effort and that elections shouldn't be the only focus of those efforts.

However, neither of those things was my point. Instead, my point is this:
In the wake of the precipitous decline of the movements throughout the late 70s and early 80s, the official reformist leaderships – the trade union bureaucracy, the established Black leadership, the liberal wing of the Democratic Party – have focused ever more narrowly on the electoral road. In this situation, those who would revive social democracy have had little choice but to make a virtue of necessity. They have themselves focused more and more on electoral campaigns and have justified this tactic either by claiming to use these campaigns to organize mass struggles, or simply by construing the campaigns themselves as mass movements. In the absence of already existing mass movements, such perspectives are delusionary. It is, of course, on occasion quite possible to translate the power accumulated through mass struggle into electoral victories and reform legislation; but the reverse is rarely if ever conceivable. Those who contemplate such a strategy can do so only because they mistake the meaning of the electoral struggle to both the Democratic Party leadership and its rank and file, and because they fail to take into account what is required to wage electoral campaigns successfully.
That's from the start of section VI in the afore-mentioned Brenner piece. It goes into the Jesse Jackson campaign as a case study.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 7:58 AM on May 7, 2015


... it's possible to use the grass roots for an electoral objective, but impossible to use the election to enhance the power of the grass roots as an independent political force.

Aren't congressional races electoral objectives? Hasn't the Tea Party movement gotten a fair number of their candidates elected? This kind of organizing isn't something only the right can do.

Robert Brenner's article that Noisy Pink Bubbles linked to rejects social democratic movements as not part of the True Left, so even when independent social democratic parties win elections it's an abject failure because all they can do is get social democratic politicians elected and enact social democratic policies. My perspective is different because social democracy is something I want and support, and am willing to work for. I don't see getting candidates with social democratic views elected and enacting social democratic policies as a bad thing. It's something I want and will work for if it seems possible.

This kind of verbal sniping from people who consider themselves representatives of the One True Left is something we're going to get a lot of in the near future. We need to get used to ignoring it.
posted by nangar at 9:48 AM on May 7, 2015 [1 favorite]


> We need to get used to ignoring it.

Already was, will continue to do so.
posted by benito.strauss at 12:29 PM on May 7, 2015


Hasn't the Tea Party movement gotten a fair number of their candidates elected?

Yes, the Tea Party movement has. It is a movement independent of any individual candidate that may or may not lose an election. The Jesse Jackson or Barack Obama "movement" is not. Of course the Tea Party movement can field electoral candidates -- and is much more likely to have candidates win and implement their policies with the movement behind them -- that's the point.

Robert Brenner's article that Noisy Pink Bubbles linked to rejects social democratic movements as not part of the True Left, so even when independent social democratic parties win elections it's an abject failure because all they can do is get social democratic politicians elected and enact social democratic policies.

If that's what you took from the article, then your reading comprehension is quite poor. Brenner would be happy for social democratic candidates to win and enact social democratic policies. But, as he states, the election of (something short of) social democratic politicians -- without the existence of progressive movements -- has been concomitant with a decline in the ability to enact progressive reforms in America. One of the overriding themes of the article is that movements are absolutely necessary and forsaking them for the aims of the immediate electoral goals of the Democratic Party is done at the peril of liberalism. The article advocates social democratic movements, the opposite of what you stated it said.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 1:38 PM on May 7, 2015


A weird Bernie Sanders faux attack ad from... Al Jazeera?
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 5:01 PM on May 7, 2015


Bernie Sanders: I can beat Hillary Clinton
Sanders is hesitant to criticize Clinton, saying that he respects and admires her. But pressed on the question of why he would make a better Democratic nominee, he points to three things: his opposition to the Trans Pacific Partnership, a massive Asia-Pacific trade agreement being negotiated, his vote against the war in Iraq and leadership fighting against it, and the work he has done opposing the Keystone XL pipeline.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 11:18 AM on May 10, 2015 [2 favorites]


Ralph Nader on Bernie Sanders
AMY GOODMAN: Ralph Nader, thanks for staying with us for part two of this conversation. Before we go back to your book, I wanted to ask you about Bernie Sanders making the decision to run as a Democrat, you know, longtime socialist from Vermont, an independent from Vermont, yet he is going to run in the Democratic Party for the Democratic nomination. Your thoughts on this, as a third-party candidate that you have been again and again, Ralph?

RALPH NADER: Well, that’s always been a dilemma he’s been deliberating for the last year or so. If he runs as an independent, he can go to November. If he runs as a registered Democrat, he’s done in April or May, assuming he doesn’t defeat Hillary Clinton or others, but he gets on the televised primaries. Where as an independent he could be marginalized, as a Democrat he’s going to get on quite a few debates and in the primary. But he will be asked—if not very soon, he will be asked, "Will you endorse the nominee of the Democratic Party if it’s Hillary Clinton?" And if he says no, he may be actually kept off the debates. The debates are controlled by a corporation, known as the Democratic Party. They kept Dennis Kucinich off some of the debates. It’s completely within their power to do that.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Did you have any discussions with him about that choice? And did you give him any advice?

RALPH NADER: Bernie Sanders does not answer my calls. Fifteen years, he’s never answered a telephone call, never replied to a letter, never replied to a meeting that I wanted to go down and see him. I even had to write an article on this, called "Bernie, We Thought We Knew Ye!" One of the problems he’s going to face, other than his good graces in Vermont, is that he doesn’t have good political antennae. He doesn’t have political social graces. And he’s going to have to change that. A lot of his friends have told me that that’s a problem. But most progressive senators don’t really respond to any progressive group that tries to push him to do more than they want to do. I wrote nine letters to nine progressive senators, like Sherrod Brown, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and saying, "Look, you’re all lone rangers doing good things, but you’re going nowhere. So why don’t you get together into a caucus of nine, 10, 12 senators in the Senate and push a unified agenda on poverty, on labor, on the environment, on trade, on military policy? You might really get somewhere. At the least, you’ll raise these issues more prominently." Not a single response. Called up, said, "Would they respond?" Not a single response. I did finally have to go down and meet with the general counsel for Senator Warren. But by and large, that’s the problem with the left. That’s the problem of progressives. They don’t link with one another. You never see Heritage Foundation or Cato or all these right-wing groups tolerate members of Congress treating them that way who are supposed to be on their side.

AMY GOODMAN: Ralph Nader, Bernie Sanders tweeted on Thursday that he looked forward to debating Clinton on, quote, "the big issues: income inequality, climate change & getting big money out of politics." Hillary Clinton had tweeted, in response to him announcing for presidency, the first formal Democratic candidate against her—she wrote, "I agree with Bernie. Focus must be on helping America’s middle class. GOP would hold them back. I welcome him to the race." Your response?

RALPH NADER: Well, he’s got a very good 12-point program, which I’m sure he’s going to talk about all over the country. And you can see what Hillary’s response and strategy is going to be. She is going to agree with him on a general basis, like, "Yes, we should have better wages for the American people." She’s going to try to neutralize him. She’s going to try to, in effect, appear like she is going along with progressive policies. His counterstrategy has got to be very specific. "OK, Hillary Clinton, do you support a Wall Street transaction tax?" There are sales taxes on necessities of life all over the United States, 6 to 8 percent, but there’s not a penny sales tax if someone today buys a $100 billion worth or $100 million worth of ExxonMobil derivatives. Well, that will really get it specific. So he cannot allow her to generalize agreement with him to try to neutralize him.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 7:13 AM on May 11, 2015 [1 favorite]


RALPH NADER: Bernie Sanders does not answer my calls. Fifteen years, he’s never answered a telephone call, never replied to a letter, never replied to a meeting that I wanted to go down and see him. I even had to write an article on this, called "Bernie, We Thought We Knew Ye!" One of the problems he’s going to face, other than his good graces in Vermont, is that he doesn’t have good political antennae. He doesn’t have political social graces.

Nader went on to express his surprise that any right-thinking politician would forget to hook up with the can't-lose magic that is Ralph Nader: "Sanders thinks he's, what, too good to hang out with me? I even offered him this cake that I made, and said we should eat the cake and talk policy. Nothing. Two days later, I'm like halfway through the cake, I call him up, all, 'Bernie, this cake has CONFETTI SPRINKLES on the frosting. And I can help you with your political strategy. Call me,' is what I leave on dude's voicemail. Fuckin nothing, man. It's like, what, you don't LIKE cake? you're too BUSY? Fuckin say so, man. I'm a grown up, I can take a hint. Just, it's like... it's not that I'm MAD, it's just, like, PUZZLING, you know? It's fucking PUZZLING that the dude doesn't want advice from ME, who has run, like, MULTIPLE times. Whatever, his loss, anyway it took me a week but yeah I got through the whole cake myself. Okay I'm ready for the next question"
posted by Greg Nog at 9:05 PM on May 11, 2015 [7 favorites]


Pretty good analysis from Socialist Alternative
In our view, however, Sanders is making a fundamental mistake by running in the Democratic Party primary. Instead, we have argued that he should run as an independent to help build a political alternative to the corporate-owned political parties. There is a glaring contradiction between Sanders’ call for a political revolution against the billionaire class and attempting to carry that out within a party controlled by that same billionaire class.

This contradiction will be posed starkly when Sanders loses the Democratic primary. Sanders has said he will endorse the Democratic nominee, which is very likely to be Hilary Clinton or – if Clinton stumbles badly – another safe pro-business Democrat. This will mean that those mobilized by Sanders will be told to support a pro-corporate Democrat, the exact opposite of a “revolution” against the “billionaires and oligarchs.” This could result in the demoralization of those mobilized by the idea of fighting corporate power and the loss of a historic opportunity.
...
Despite these political shortcomings, Bernie’s campaign stands out as fundamentally different from those of all the other business-as-usual politicians running for president. To much of the population which has come of age over the past 25 years, he is “still the most radical politician from the Left they have ever seen.”
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 9:18 PM on May 11, 2015


"The Left should take a page from the Tea Party’s playbook ...", Jacob Swenson-Lengyel, In These Times.
posted by nangar at 1:01 AM on May 15, 2015 [1 favorite]




There's a Reddit AMA with Bernie Sanders from earlier today.
posted by peeedro at 2:46 PM on May 19, 2015


Bernie Sanders: I can beat Hillary Clinton.

Sanders is hesitant to criticize Clinton, saying that he respects and admires her. But pressed on the question of why he would make a better Democratic nominee, he points to three things: his opposition to the Trans Pacific Partnership, a massive Asia-Pacific trade agreement being negotiated, his vote against the war in Iraq and leadership fighting against it, and the work he has done opposing the Keystone XL pipeline.



Dear god, Bernie. What the fuck is wrong with you.

We do not need you to beat Clinton in the primaries. You can't beat her in the primaries. It doesn't matter if you win every ballot and caucus. Those votes will be discounted and you will be declared a loser. Primaries are rigged in favor of Candidates the party donors want. You've been in politics a long time. You know this by now.

No, Bernie. We need you to challenge Hillary on the issues and confront her with every awful choice she's ever made. We need you to not be hesitant. We need you to confront her neoliberal economics ruthlessly, and have the moral conviction to demonstrate that we need to talk about it.

You are doing the opposite of what we need you to. Don't be a Nader, Bernie.
posted by clarknova at 11:55 PM on May 19, 2015 [1 favorite]


I'm pretty sure the party donors wanted Hillary in 2008.
posted by Chrysostom at 3:25 AM on May 20, 2015


High finance got what it wanted from Obama without hesitation. They paid handsomely for it up front. They knew they were cool either way.

I haven't seen any campaign finance breakdowns for him, but AFIK Bernie can't be bought the same way. It's a real concern for them this time.
posted by clarknova at 4:35 AM on May 21, 2015 [1 favorite]




"You are doing the opposite of what we need you to. Don't be a Nader, Bernie."

He's going to be running as a Democrat in states that need him to.
posted by MikeHoncho at 1:46 PM on May 22, 2015




Bernie Sanders Slams The Media For Their Biased Presidential Campaign Coverage
SANDERS: I think we are doing pretty well. And I think the media -- we have gotten more serious discussion on our issues than I might have thought about.

But this is what I worry about. In terms of campaign coverage...

STELTER: Yes.

SANDERS: ... there is more coverage about the political gossip of a campaign, about raising money, about polling, about somebody saying something dumb, or some kid works for a campaign sends out something stupid on Facebook, right? We can expect that to be a major story.

But what your job is, what the media's job is, is to say, look, these are the major issues facing the country. We're a democracy. People have different points of view. Let's argue it.
posted by audi alteram partem at 11:51 AM on May 24, 2015 [3 favorites]


Live stream of today's official campaign kickoff here (5 pm Eastern).
posted by audi alteram partem at 11:45 AM on May 26, 2015 [4 favorites]


“Don’t count Bernie Sanders out,” Steve Kornacki, MSNBC, 26 May 2015
posted by ob1quixote at 4:00 PM on May 26, 2015 [2 favorites]


He is now at 33-1 with Ted Cruz. Hillary is even money.
posted by bukvich at 5:14 AM on May 27, 2015


How Bernie Sanders Learned to Be a Real Politician, Tim Murphy, Mother Jones.
posted by nangar at 5:19 AM on May 27, 2015


Bernie Sanders' campaign website has a page called berniesanders.com/wtf
(warning: autoplaying video)
posted by nangar at 5:48 AM on May 27, 2015


That's just the 404 page
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 7:06 AM on May 27, 2015


He is now at 33-1 with Ted Cruz.

Same with Warren, who isn't even running. :/
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 7:16 AM on May 27, 2015


That's just the 404 page

Yes, but it's funny enough that a lot of media outlets ran articles about it. And making the url itself part of the joke means all the articles about it have to include a link to the campaign's website.
posted by nangar at 7:38 AM on May 27, 2015


« Older Spoiler: they sleep a lot   |   Henceforth, it is the map that precedes the... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments