See Nader, Ralph.

Meaning: if he has no expectation of winning, he has no reason not to rip Clinton to shreds at every opportunity. I'm sure it's well within his remarkable skill set. And that accomplishes what exactly?

& spent several months in Iowa deciding what kind of support is there. Myself, I certainly agree Hillary Clinton's odds are in her favor but currently he is polling third place behind her & Biden very consistently for past 3-4 months & the thing those 2 is people know them. I think the number could climb higher as people get to know him right know most people poll "don't know enough" or something similar on the question of Bernie Sanders.

I don't think he is in there just to bring issues into the race as I listened to reasons coming from him, he has repeatedly said (because all reporters do is ask him questions about Hillary) as it isn't about her but about the donor money corrupting both parties & about issues that affect the middle class.

He has said it would take an "un-precendented grass roots" support to get him elected when he first floated the idea but he isn't anti-anybody, he often mentions a respect he has for other Democrats. I've seen him on Real Time & a journalist there ask him where were Democrats like you during the midterms because he was out there strongly standing for something.

OK, leave out the "fucking"

He's not running as an independent. He has said clearly over and over again that he will not play the role of spoiler, one has to be either slow on the uptake or have a nasty little agenda to spread misinformation, as I KNOW you are aware of this.

He has said over and over again, that he will NOT be attacking HRC. I posted yet another piece with Bernie in his own words, saying just that, this morning.

He has never run attack adds. Not in over a dozen campaigns. He has promised not to this time. He has said he absolutely will NOT trash HRC. Got that? Brilliant.

And I said he couldn't win. I'm not in his head.

Beyond that, he's been clear: He wants a national discussion of issues he believes are vital to the survival of this nation as a democracy.

NO. SHREDDING CLINTON IS FUCKING NOT IN HIS SKILL SET.

SHAME ON YOU

because I heard all the grand promises you've faithfully quoted in 1999, from Ralph Nader, who at least had the grace not to run as a Democrat. I'd also feel better if Sanders settled that question of party membership one way or the other but so far he hasn't and that worries me too.

You are spreading misinformation. You want to believe and spread ugly shit with no connection to fact. It is disgraceful. I know we'll see better from Sanders and his campaign because of how he has run over a dozen campaigns and because of what he has promised. You will not be able to find one single example that contradicts that claim. I trust that HRC and her campaign will also. hew to that standard, despite the fact that she has not always done so.

about his dishonest characterizations of the TPP treaty which in my view are shameful. Yes, he's avoided direct attacks on Clinton, so far at least, but he's tossed plenty of dirt in the direction of the President and based on remarks he's made publicly over the course of the last six years I do not share your optimistic view of Senator Sanders or his promises.

Here's a link to a HuffPost article quoting his false TPP claims:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/05/bernie-sanders-michael-froman-tpp_n_6419874.html

I read that but where does it say he lied? Or are you just saying he lied.

who intentionally helped win George W Bush become president.

Bernie is Nader with a sense of decency and concern for real-world consequences and Kucinich with credibility and sanity.

but maybe I have higher standards than you. As for the rest I suppose we'll see.

as I'm sure he's perfectly capable of doing. Tell me realistically: where does that leave us in Nov. 2016?

He's running on economic issues.

If he isn't he needs to get out before he does any more damage.

He's not Bill Bradley.

and that would be very bad.

Many party leaders (and just plain Hillary fans) are deathly afraid that Sanders message will begin to siphon off voters from her.

If that happens, Hillary would likely have to adopt a truly fiscally liberal set of campaign positions, and those party leaders and Hillary fans dont care about those issues.

In fact it would be the worst thing possible as far as they're concerned as it might impact Hillary's appeal to the Wall St. money men she has courted since Bill left the WH, crippling her GE finances.

Of course she would likely tell them behind closed doors that she hasnt changed her beliefs, its all a bunch of empty campaign promises (remember the word came out to Canada in the 08 primaries that Obama really had no intentions of renegotiating NAFTA?), but that leads to more distrust by average voters after already being burned by a slick Obama campaign in 08.

She might feel she would actually (GASP!) have to follow through on many of those fiscally liberal positions.

This is really what Bernie is trying to accomplish, forcing her so far left she might end up as a real liberal after all.

And the party leaders hate it after decades of selling the Democratic party to the same moneyed interests that control the GOP.

That state has the population of Brooklyn.

In 1974, Clinton got about 60K votes in the 3rd district primary, about 38K votes in the runoff, and then lost with 83K votes in the general election. In 1976, he was elected AG. In 1978, he got 341K votes in the gubernatorial primary and won with 335K votes in the general. In 1980, he got 307K votes in the gubernatorial primary and lost with 403K votes in the general. In 1982, he got 237K votes in the gubernatorial primary, 239K in the runoff, and won with 432K votes in the general. In 1984, he got 318K votes in the gubernatorial primary and won with 555K votes in the general. In 1986, he got 315K votes in the gubernatorial primary and won with 440K votes in the general. In 1990, he got 269K votes in the gubernatorial primary and won with 400K votes in the general.

In 1972, Sanders ran on a third party ticket for Senator from Vermont and lost with a total of 1600 votes (2% of the vote). The same year, he ran on a third party ticket for governor and lost with a total of 2200 votes (1% of the vote). In 1974, he again ran on a third party ticket for Senator from Vermont and lost with a total of 5900 votes (4% of the vote). In 1976, he again ran on a third party ticket for governor and lost with a total of 11K votes (6% of the vote). He later became an independent. In 1981, he was elected mayor of Burlington with 4300 votes; in 1983, was reelected with 6900 votes; and in 1985, was reelected with 5800 votes. In 1986, he lost a run for governor with 28K votes (14% of the total vote). In 1987, he was reelected mayor with 6800 votes. In 1988, he lost a congressional run with 90K votes (38% of the total vote). Sander's then won the congressional seat in 1990 with 118K votes and has held it since.

Despite his many weaknesses, Clinton is something of a political genius; and Sanders, despite his own strengths, is decidedly not

Your original point was that Bernie came from a small state and so he couldn't run or win a national campaign. I pointed out that Bill came from a small state and won two national campaigns.

Now you shift to the success rates of the two candidates in their small states, highlighting vote margins. Sanders ran and won both a congressional and Senate campaign as a third party candidate, an important point you acknowledge but fail to discuss. It's pretty hard to win races as a third party candidate.

Yes, unlike the Clintons, Sanders is decidedly not a political genius. That probably why many of us will support and vote for him.

Change is in the air.

That's why they all hire staffs of professional people who run campaigns year after year. The most important decision a candidate makes the entire campaign is who to hire to run the campaign for them.

"Tad Devine, one of the Democratic Party’s leading consultants and a former high-level campaign aide to Al Gore, John Kerry, and Michael Dukakis,”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/11/11/tad-devine-signs-on-to-work-with-bernie-sanders-on-potential-2016-run/

to the scumbag known far and wide as the notorious piece of shit Dick Cheney.

Welcome aboard!

I'll bet it's pretty damned small in comparison to the impact their caucuses have on the choices of the rest.

lost the primaries the first time around seem all that "winning".

as to the outcome of his announcement of running for the Presidency. I like his message and after yesterdays viewing of a video of an interview done back in '89 where he was articulating the very same things as he does today shows me this man is not a flash in the pan, man. He's the real deal.

That would leave us with no candidates who will fight for the people at all.

lol

There has already been one Vermont resident who won the presidency. The polar opposite of Bernie, of course. Today's Vermonters are not all that eager to claim Cal.

neither one was a Vermont resident when they ran.

began in New York and Coolidge's in Massachusetts

The man is at the very least a major regional figure, and in the Beltway he is widely recognized.

It's the pretty low on the list of things I personally care about.

work for keeping Democrats informed and to the polls in North Carolina.

I think anyone trying to predict an outcome this far out doesn't really "know" anything.

We can look back on these embryonic predictions though.. and see how they faired.

I know more about his stances on issues than I've ever heard about Hillary. Technology is a wonderful thing, giving a guy from a small state, national exposure.

Time will tell.

more constituents.

This question dominates all policy-related matters, because the outcome of policy fights depends on whether one can organize well-enough to win those fights

To begin from the question Whose policies do I support? is to begin from an unrealistic political PoV: it does not matter what a candidate's stand on policy is, if the candidate cannot organize well-enough to win that policy fight

Hoping for success, by aiming only at the top of the ticket, is not a promising approach

If one is interested only in the top of the ticket, the proper question is not Whose policies do I support? bur rather Which of the candidates, who are well-organized enough to win, supports policies closest to my own?

If one wants to promote a certain policy, one needs to organize effectively around that policy and then to offer organizational help to candidates who support that policy: the most likely route to success here involves a long-term commitment to developing and promoting candidates, from early in their political careers, who will support the policy

We're going to Wyoming
Which way is Wyoming?
Hook a right here
You're going the wrong way
I know that

He also doesn't have piles of corporate money and tends to tell the truth(!).

Just sayin'

well, except for Franklin Pierce (NH), Andrew Jackson (TN, small at the time), and Ike (KS).

But it's going to be fun watching his supporters here come to that realization over the next 8-9 months. Tremendous theater it will be.

...and why will it be "fun?"

Plenty of Bernie fans are acutely aware of his chances of winning the nomination.

Schadenfreude over this particular issue wouldn't be artificial.

Or do you mean you just like to gloat?

In the end, he won't be the nominee. I don't particularly like gloating, but I will enjoy the show.

As I said, many (if not most) of his supporters are already aware of that. Doesn't sound like much of a show. Keep on keepin' on.

I'm glad I'm not one of them.

I think you're confusing Schadenfreude and Petulance.

However I can certainly understand why-- no one likes to admit (to themselves, if no one else) gleefully acting as do preschoolers-- so we give our petulance another name, and rationalize our child-like behavior from that...

as long as he doesn't break anything though he doesn't seem to be playing that particular game at the moment.

this:

[img]?1240934151[/img]

or this:

[img][/img]

I think he has enough experience to do well but ultimately I think he'll probably lose in the primaries to HRC. However, I'm glad we have him the debate as a much needed voice from the left that will hopefully nudge Clinton away from some of her more corporate-friendly stances.

and that's enormously entertaining, if nothing else.

That's a creative trope you're throwing at the wall. No doubt, it will fail on merit alone, but kudos for the old, college try.

Okay.

It's too early in the game for this level of desperation

You clearly know nothing of the man.

from the higher population states. Especially in modern times, governors have been very popular.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_by_previous_experience