Umm ... he's 72 years old.

Bernie Sanders has zero chance of winning the nomination and zero chance of winning the general election.

@2 they understand that, and yet their reasons for supporting his run were pretty clearly stated. They want a measure of the number of democrats who will back a real socialist. And they want to budge Hillary leftward.

I'm opposed to the idea. For one, we wouldn't get an accurate read on opinions from Sanders running because a good deal of people who back Sanders' ideas will still vote for Hillary. And Sanders can't budge Hillary to the left. She's polling around 70% of the primary vote. Why would she get into the weeds with Sanders? As she knows that as long as she's deferential and polite to Sanders she will pick up enough support to become President.

It's also not necessary. Hillary will be at least a shade more populist than Obama. She can read the tea leaves. And we will have a hard enough time with reasonable populist goals nationally, especially if she faces a GOP controlled congress. Hillary is at least as populist as we need her to be, and I'm not convinced that a more populist President will result in more populist policies after that point.

Also, Sanders running would fuel that media narrative that "even Democrats don't want a 'coronation' for Hillary." That's bad. I'm not saying we should actually throw her a coronation, but seeing as how she IS GOING to be our nominee, let's not undercut her at every chance we have okay?!

If we want real populist policies it's about time we start aiming at Republicans and not each other.

Oh and if Clinton decides to run, she will raise more than $4 million in the first 24 hours after her announcement.

Ready For Hillary, a Super PAC affiliated with Hillary Clinton supporters, raised over $4 million in 2013 in mostly small donations. According to them, 98 percent of their 33,631 contributions were for $100 or less. More than half were were for $20.16, the amount that they ask for in fundraising emails and on their website. This amount was raised primarily from internet ads and without Clinton's endorsement.

Romney spent $1.5 million and his Super PAC spent $2.8 million on ads during the Iowa Republican caucus alone. Romney's PAC spent almost $9 million on the Republican primary race through the New Hampshire primary.

Unions and progressive super PACs are not going to spend any money on Sanders because they know that it would be a waste of finite resources.

Alex Ruthrauff is delusional if he thinks otherwise.
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/…

http://swampland.time.com/2012/01/13/wha…

#4 If what you say is true - "Unions and progressive super PACs are not going to spend any money on Sanders because they know that it would be a waste of finite resources." - then to hell with these groups. By this logic, liberal/progressive groups (who exactly are we talking about anyway?) should only invest in 'establishment' candidates, even when such candidates represent the interests and policy preferences completely at odds with these groups' interests and policy preferences. You have totally internalized the inside the beltway/serious person/only the rich count mentality that is killing the democratic party. Make no mistake, Hilary Clinton represents big money - Wall Street and large corporations. The only thing that recommends her is that she is not a total right-wing nut-job (aka a republican). But that is not good enough anymore.

According to Gallup (for what that's worth), the primary front-runner in Jan has only actually won the primary 40% of the time. So it's hardly a foregone conclusion.

Pushing Hillary to the left in the primary only hurts her chances in the general.

I was speaking to a Libertarian the other day who said he wants the Republicans to pick a tea party candidate. I said that I hoped they did too because he wouldn't stand a chance in the general election.

Carving out extreme positions on either side doesn't help get people elected and just makes it harder to actually govern when in power.

#5 Liberal/progressive positions are popular and are not by any means 'extreme'. From Social Security/medicare to single payer/public option to higher tax for high income earners to corporation executives being held accountable for their crimes to laws that protect the environment... go through the list and you won't find many if any liberal/progressive positions that don't survey over 50% support. They are only 'extreme' because clowns like Rush Limbaugh/Sean Hannity/Karl Rove/Sarah Palin etc. call them extreme and too much of the rest of the media kinda go along with that characterization. The real problem though is that big-moneyed interests don't like candidates they don't own on financial issues. And the media, esp. broadcast media like big money horse races because it means more ad revenue for them. That is why liberal/progressive positions never get much traction, not because they are extreme. For example, I would argue that the only reason gay rights are being recognized now is because big moneyed interests are not threatened by gay rights in any symbolic or substantive way.

er, #7 should be directed at #6

I'd love to see Bernie Sanders run, if only to show the nation what a politician with concern for the working middle class looks like.

I've been saying this forever; Bill Clinton was the greatest Republican president of the 20th century, except most Republicans are too stupid to realize it.

Now Obama is trying his best to be Clinton 2.0 and Hillary will damn sure try to be Bill Clinton 2.1.

Fuck Hillary and the Third Way. I'll give him $400, which is what I gave Obama in 2008 to be a nearly complete quisling. I'm done with "more and crappier Democrats."

@ 10, what do you hope to achieve?

Nader. Bush. Florida. Iraq. 4000 dead soldiers and a whole lot more dead Iraqis.

@12, Whoa! Totally different story. If Bernie ran, he'd run as a Democrat, not as a third-party candidate.

@11 Staying away from Stockholm Syndrome addicted hacks like you.

@ 14, so it's all about you? It doesn't sound like it's about America.

See: http://www.sanders.senate.gov/about

Per Sen. Sanders' web page, "Bernie Sanders was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2006 after serving 16 years in the House of Representatives. He is the longest serving independent member of Congress in American history."

Independent ≠ Democrat.

Again: Nader. Bush. Florida. Iraq. 4000 dead soldiers and a whole lot more dead Iraqis.

@16 Florida showed that Nader was right about the Democratic party that supported Bush's wars and didn't oppose blatant election rigging.

What #13 says. I think Bernie Sanders would run in the democratic primary, and if he doesn't win the nomination, he would not run in the general election. So the Nadar 2000 comparisons are premature, if not actually false. I keep hearing that one of the best ways to push the democratic party back to the left is through the primary process, but when a real leftie actually talks about running in the primary, lefties all get the vapors and worry about being perceived as 'not serious' because of 'extreme' positions, blah blah blah. Hello! Right now lefties are losing on policy, regardless of which party is in control of whatever branch of government. Knee-capping real lefties because of perceived non-electibility plays right into Wall Street's hands.

Any move to the left by H Clinton during campaigning means nothing like it meant nothing for Obama. Quit being fools.

#16 Bernie Sanders is no Ralph Nader. I can't imagine he'd stay in the election past the democratic convention.

#19 yea, you are probably right. But nonetheless, I think it is important that lefties don't just give up on policy and meekly accept that Wall Street/Third Way/DLC democrats are our only option. Let's hear H Clinton describe her positions in real debates. If she's gonna eventually betray the democratic base if and when she wins, let's get her on the record so we can document the charade.

The Dem base is going to have to do better producing progressive candidates. That can't happen if progressives keep bitching about the centrists and just deciding to opt out and pretend that that puts them above the whole thing.

I like Bernie a lot, but this is an absolute nonstarter. Even if he were to run as a Dem, which is the only way his candidacy would be ANY way more positive in result than Nader's.

@17: Co ja kurwa czytam?

Here is a question and answer from Bernie Sanders about whether he'd run as a dem or not: (From The Nation)
http://www.thenation.com/blog/178717/ber…

(short answer - he hasn't decided yet)

If and when you do start a full-fledged campaign, and if you want to run against conventional politics, how far do you go? Do you go to the point of running as an independent? That’s a great challenge to conventional politics, but it is also one where we have seen some honorable, some capable people stumble.

"That’s an excellent question, and I haven’t reached a conclusion on that yet. Clearly, there are things to be said on both sides of that important question. Number one: there is today more and more alienation from the Republican and Democratic parties than we have seen in the modern history of this country. In fact, most people now consider themselves to be “independent,” whatever that may mean. And the number of people who identify as Democrats or Republicans is at a historically low point. In that sense, running outside the two-party system can be a positive politically.

On the other hand, given the nature of the political system, given the nature of media in America, it would be much more difficult to get adequate coverage from the mainstream media running outside of the two-party system. It would certainly be very hard if not impossible to get into debates. It would require building an entire political infrastructure outside of the two-party system: to get on the ballot, to do all the things that would be required for a serious campaign.

The question that you asked is extremely important, it requires a whole lot of discussion. It’s one that I have not answered yet."

Look. Bernie might not have a snowball's chance in hell, but can you think of a cheaper way to reach out to unengaged, unregistered voters? The man does populism. There are people whose ears will perk up and maybe go drag their asses to MV or the PO to get a voter registration form.

The GOP has had sole access to the disaffected so far, it's damned time that Dems had a hook. Bernie may just be bait, but we need those voters.

How do we get the discouraged and the disaffected to the polls after Obama turning Republican on us? Hilary isn't going to do a damn thing more than Obama has done about standing up to the insane right wing. I don't trust her any farther than I could throw her rich white ample posterior. Sanders would be a joy to vote for but can an old white male excite the base? Or bring in the new voters needed? And since it looks as if the Dems have dropped the ball on the 2014 elections, with the lunatics in control of both houses of Congress, what could Sanders do if he was elected? It will be more gridlock no matter what Dem wins the White House.

Is it possible to run in the primary for more than one party? If so, imagine the scenario where he runs a populist primary campaign simultaneously in the Republican and Democratic parties so that he can get that message out to a larger base of people. At the same time, pursue ballot access for an independent run.

Then he can use whatever platform he's built during the primaries to bargain with Clinton over policy and appointments, being willing to take any good deal, but holding the Nader scenario as leverage.

If he can only run as one party at a time, he should run in the Republican primary. Hillary is a done deal on the Democratic side, and they're getting all the attention, so why not? The debates would be entertaining if nothing else.

Obama got elected as a liberal and then governed as a center-right candidate.

That said, I'd rather have more and stronger liberal in the House and Senate than running for President.

Hillary will only continue the Bush/Obama-Duncan attack on public education, privatizing as much as they can to give those DFER fools more money in their hedge funds. I'd much prefer Sanders to Clinton at this point.

@1: Bernie Sanders at 72 is like 11 in Reagan years.

You can learn more about Bernie’s roots and principles which were established when he governed Burlington, Vermont as Mayor. Bernie wrote the forward to a book published in 2013 called “Sustainable Communities ~ Creating A Durable Local Economy.”

What is a durable economy? It is one that not only survives but thrives. How is it created, and what does it take to sustain over time? Sustainable Communities provides insight and answers to these questions.

Citing Burlington, Vermont’s remarkable rise to award-winning status, this book explores the balance of community planning, social enterprise development, energy and environment, food systems and cultural well-being. Aimed at policymakers, development practitioners, students, and citizens, this book describes which and how multiple influences facilitate the creation of a local, durable and truly sustainable economy. The authors hope to inspire others by sharing this story of what can be done in the name of community economic development.

This book might give you a window how he might govern as President.

If Hillary is the Democratic nominee in 2016, and the Republican nominee is a genetically engineered hybrid of Augusto Pinochet, Josef Mengele, and Satan, an alumnus of Regent University, the University of Chicago, and the School of the Americas, a lifelong member of the Federalist and Atlas Societies, an advocate of abortion clinic bombings, and drinking buddies with David Barton and Ted Nugent, I will still be voting Socialist or Green. And if Daily Kos-swilling Democratic Party dupes don't like spoilers like me, they had better start working hard to replace first-past-the-post and top-two voting with preferential voting before 2016.

Bernie would probably get my vote as Democratic nominee, although he sold his vote for Obamacare for a pittance and is now pushing a piss-poor, extremely distant second-best state-by-state single-payer plan together with fellow sell-out Jim McDermott. Wall Street reformer Elizabeth Warren might get my vote, although I don't expect much in the way of progressiveness from her in other areas. But MIC-fluffing corporate whore Hillary? Not a chance in hell.

And by the way, while our invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq have been tragic mistakes on every front, Ralph Nader was way ahead of the curve in recognizing what the Democratic Party has become. Besides, while it's become a mantra to Democrats, it's not at all clear that Nader spoiled the Florida election in 2000.

Feeling angry? Better start working hard for preferential voting, because your Democratic Party Machine candidates ain't gettin' my vote no more.

Bernie is awesome. I'd love to hear him shape the debate but would miss having him in the Senate.

And my vote is my vote- it doesn't belong to Hillary, Christie, Sanders or anyone else- it's mine and no one should count it as theirs until I cast it for them, which I will not do unless they earn it.