I like Bernie but see him as a spoiler for Democrats... Secondly, he can't run as a Democrat being an Independent.

He should help any democratic candidate by maybe campaigning for them.

I don't know why folks who support Bernie don't get it. He's not a member of the Democratic Party. We don't need his drama. Our goal is to beat the repubs.

Ya know...a part of me senses many of his supporters were fake trolls....paid plants to be Party disruptors....Just a feeling...no facts.....

but I do think this is not the time for him to run and unfortunately never will be.

With respect, hang it up Bernie. It's time to build up a powerful Democrat who can carry the party as well as the rest.

Bernie declares as a Democratic candidate and beats any Democrat who's running in the primary.

Then after he wins, he declines the nomination and runs as an Independent in the general election.

Then in the general election, winning is easy because there is NO DEMOCRAT ON THE BALLOT. All of his opponents are independents.

That's how he wins.

He's been using our party for years.

Has a Republican opponent.

opponent. He just USES our party and I'm sick of it and him.

Yet the "establishment" is his greatest boogeyman.

and sick of him using my party. The people in VT seem to like him well enough, that's where he should stay.

I also find it annoying he won't join the party (why? Ego?) but his voting record is that of a (very good) Democrat, isn't it?

of Democrats currently serving. NONE of them are USING my party the way Bernie has. His stunt the last time he ran for Senator truly pissed me off. I'd vote for him if he's our candidate but not one fucking dollar, not one phone call, not one door knocked.

...since he only won re-election in 2018 with about 67% of the vote.

has nothing to do with those who don't want to run for potus.

...if a third of them didn't even want him to be senator. I mean, of course a lot of people there aren't fans, as is true of every senator who didn't win his/her state with about 100% of the vote (i.e., all of the them). Maybe my point was too subtle.

It would be interesting to know how many people who did vote for him wouldn't want him to be president, but AFAIK we don't have that info. But I think we can safely assume that, overwhelmingly, the third who voted against him for Senator don't want him to be President either.

only Vermont.

That is, it is a "duh" statement. Saying (as George did) that "a lot" of Vermonters don't want Sanders to be President is inherently obvious--and inconsequential--if a third of the state didn't even want him to be Senator. That's all I was saying. (I assume we'd all agree that a third by itself is already a lot.) If, OTOH, a significant portion of the 2/3 who voted for Sanders did not want him to be President, that would not be meaningless, but I don't think we know that.

When you say, "it's not only Vermont," I think it's clear you're talking about something other than what I'm talking about, and something other than the statement George put forth which I was responding to, which concerned the Vermont voters who, as George said, "know him very well." But it is self-evident that a third of those who know him well didn't even want him to be senator... and that's not an indictment, as a 2/3 win is still pretty decisive and better than many. (It's also the same margin Hillary won by in her last run for senator from New York. But maybe that's not the most encouraging example. )

What kind of civil dialogue uses the word "Duh"? It's a minimizing and dismissive.

Since you find me wordy, I'm surprised you don't appreciate how economical that usage is.

re: "If its so meaningless, you take a lot of words to mean nothing..."

Unfortunately, it seems that it can take quite a few words to explain why something else is irrelevant. What I thought was a simple thought ended up needing lots of exposition, maybe I just couldn't explain it well.

Anyway, do you have any point about the topic at hand? Or only complaints about my writing style?

...Senate election in 2018.

Only 3% ($118,000) of his contributions came from within Vermont, 97% came from out of state. If money talks, the people of Vermont are whispering.

...how did that $118k compare to how much his Republican opponent raised (from within Vermont)?

He ran against a bunch of independents.

at least according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_United_States_Senate_election_in_Vermont

...was 36% of his total receipts.

It's difficult to compare, however, since the republicans in Vermont have rarely put up a viable candidate against him. His opponent raised only $41,000.

Sanders raised $3.9M for his Senate campaign, that's $3.8M from out of state. He received about a half a million dollars from California alone!

What might be more important is why so much "outside" money was sent to a Senate candidate from Vermont, the second smallest in the country by population. What are all those people expecting in return?

In her last New York Senate campaign (2006), Hillary raised $17 million from out-of-state donors.

That's a far cry from only 3%.

...where so many of the big ticket donors are, regardless of where you are in the country. Hillary benefitted from the fact that so many deep pockets were in her own state, something that can't be said of Vermont. Still, she got huge $ from elsewhere as well. In absolute dollars, far, far more than Sanders. I guess they wanted something too...

You know what they say about making it in New York.

Trust me, it is SO out of our hands, the newspaper hands, the people of VT hands.

You can't even assume that all of the ones who voted for HRC did so because they did not want him to run. There is a difference between not being for him and not wanting him to run.

Which democratic primary? He did very well in caucuses, but his scorecard in primaries? Not great, by a long shot.

And he bombed in the South.

Here in Colorado, we've abolished caucuses and will hold a primary in 2018. Why? Voters believe that caucuses are not democratic.

This is not a good sign for him. And of course there is the matter of sexual harassment and pay inequity for the women on his staff.

"The staff of the Times Argus said that part of their concern revolves around whether Sanders is loyal to “Vermont or a bigger calling,” noting that the senator “missed dozens of votes that likely would have helped Vermonters” when he ran for the Democratic nomination in 2016.

“While he makes regular visits ‘home,’ you are more likely to catch Sanders on Colbert, CNN or MSNBC than you are to see him talking to reporters here in Vermont,” the paper explained. “Evidently, microphones here don’t extend far enough.”

But for the editorial board at the Times Argus, their “greatest concern” revolves around “a fear a Sanders run risks dividing the well-fractured Democratic Party” and could split the 2020 presidential vote in a similar manner as 2016.”

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/01/vermont-newspaper-begs-bernie-sanders-not-run-president-much-stake-take-gamble/

Not sure exactly why but I'll guess they ask pointed questions about his commitment to Vermont versus to the US elections.

I was glad to vote for him before.

but we will be paying attention to who does..

I promise not to run for President, and I'll spend it on something useful, like a new pair of waterproof winter boot. Just OK me for an address where you can send it. OKTNXBYE

Entirely changing the subject, how cold has it been in Minnesota this year? Any signs of climate change?

Your interest in new boots made me think of my boots here in Denver. I've yet to use them. We're having 10 days of temps in the 50s next week. Unbelievable. Western Colorado reservoirs are drying up - not enough snow pack to fill them.

Bad news climate wise all around our state.

I'm in California until Tuesday.

“Principle over ego”—just one of the many pointed quotes.

“a fear a Sanders run risks dividing the well-fractured Democratic Party” and could split the 2020 presidential vote in a similar manner as 2016.”

Ya think?

Too much at risk is an understatement. We all now know what's on the line. It remains to be seen if national survival outweighs ideological hubris.

If he wants to run in the Democratic primary, let him fight it out with the rest of them. Someone will eventually come out on top and that's who anyone who wants Trump gone needs to support. I'm more concerned about people who think they're voting their conscience when they go third party without any regard about the end result. Last time around we got Trump, the worst POTUS in the history of the country. If third parties split the vote, we could have him for 4 more years.

The problem is not with Bernie - or anyone else - running in the primaries. The primaries, and then the convention, will sort things out. It is almost undemocratic to tell anyone to stand aside at this early date.

The problem is with egotists who decide to run as a third party candidates. Yes Ralph Nader, I'm talking about you. Yes Jill Stein, I'm talking about you.

He stayed in the race far beyond the point where his chance of winning the nomination evaporated.

with Hillary and when Hillary won, his supporters whined about the rigged primary against him. if he loses the primary again the same scenario will unfold. The Repuke will win again(Romney?) because all those “cheated” Bernie voters will have voted for Jill Stein, again

from MY state, CA, chanting "Lock her up" in response to her historic nomination. (And after she beat Sanders in the CA primary by 7 percentage points.)

— nor should you — over. Being upset at people who vote their conscience is not only unproductive but when announced becomes counterproductive. It is exactly this kind of attitude that fuels the independent thinking that results in third-Party or non-votes.

Plus, we'll never really know what exactly gave Cheeto his scanty margins in those four Great Lakes states.

There's good reason to believe that in at least some of those, Putin-funded vote flippers did the trick - a cinch, what with our 15 year-old read-and-write (GOP-designed) electronic tabulation systems.

No amount of Berniecrat loyalty to the nominee could've helped that.

I said counterproductive when manifested in the form of blaming others, but I don’t have any control over you. Have at it.

No matter the optics.

His ego grew three sizes in 2016

Did Bernie's run in the primaries bruise and distract our eventual nominee, Hillary Clinton? Certainly. But the same could be said of the losers of any primary. That's just the nature of the primary system.

The only way to avoid this would be for the party bosses to get together and pick a nominee, just like it was done 100 years ago. I'd rather avoid that. And I'm sure you would too.

He turned that election upside down multiple times, and each time his actions were totally illegitimate.

I don't like Bernie too much, but I will give him credit for calling for Comey to resign.

Link to tweet

The fact that Russian bots and trolls pushed lies in order to attempt dividing Bernie supporters from the rest of the Democratic party is hardly a reason to suggest he has ties to Russia.

IF he decides to run I may consider supporting him again, it just depends on who else is running. But rest assured, come November of 2020 my full support will be behind whomever wins the Democratic primary.

So, my money is on Elizabeth.

to be accountable is mind-bogglingly shortsighted. We did choose a candidate who ultimately did not win. Laying blame on Bernie or anyone else is just denial.

Sid

As much as I like Bernie, I think the demands of the office require a younger man or woman.

We need someone between 45-65. Outside that, they are too young or too old. Brutal, but true.

with it or not

I seriously doubt it will change anyone’s mind one way or another

I am not from Vermont so I don’t know the mindset there, but Sanders has repeatedly won re-election in that state

That has been both its strength and weakness

Howard Dean’s 50 state strategy tried to tap into that

I think the division argument comes into play after the primaries, when we hopefully unite behind the chosen candidate in the general election. Outside of that I think debate, discussion, arguments should be given free reign, though I am not naive, and that human nature confuses criticism with attacking many times

The post you responded to comes from a divisive mindset, criticizing others on our side for something we/they haven't done.

Besides his re-election in a state that isn't exactly in line with the rest of the country.

His problem is that several likely candidates have very similar positions so Bernie will have a problem differentiating himself from the pack.

Insinuate the other candidates are corrupt and aren't progressive enough.

Bern endlessly complained about two corrupt systems: Wall Street and the 1%, and top Democratic Party officials who he claimed were rigging the nomination for Hillary.

Link to tweet

I was in Burlington when he was the mayor, and loved the guy. I will never forgive him for saddling us with Trump. Bernie is not electable, and his attack from the lest flank killed Hillary in the last election. If he runs there is a good chance that Trump gets a second term. If he somehow gets the nomination, the likelihood of a second Trump term becomes even more likely. Bernie should go away.

Since claim was that he had such a big following, a little more effort on his part and a little earlier in the campaign might have saved the election.

His first appearance on behalf of our candidate wasn't until Labor Day weekend, more than a month after the convention.

How could it possibly be her fault?

NT

And of course, often requires the immediate presence of a few tablespoons of rationalizations to make it more palatable.

That doesn't make any sense.

Was she being promoted by Russia against HRC?

“Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.” Spock

but I agree 100%...

Mostly cause I thought his issues deserved to be heard. Was happy to support Hillary in the General. I happen to agree- it would be far better if he didn’t win. There are other candidates who bring a history of fighting for the issues he stands for without his baggage and without tearing open the wounds from 2016. We can’t afford a second Trump term. The world might (might) cut us some slack for having elected the Orange Cheeto once. We re-elect them, expect them to figure we’re seriously a lost cause. And they probably wouldn’t be wrong. (FWIW, I feel precisely the same way about the prospect of Hillary jumping in. Please, just don’t.)

I love her. She should be President. But that ship sailed. Time to move on.

So there's that.

They see him in much the same way that I do. They were correct then, and they're correct now.