Bernie Sanders for President

WBUR is interviewing Sen. Sanders right now, and he says if he thinks he could energize the 60-70% of voters who have given up on politics, if he could use the power of the vote to counter the control of the Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson, he would consider running for president in 2016.

Wouldn't that be something.

As much as I would like it, Bernie doesn't have a chance. He's a socialist. For real.

A few years ago I would've agreed with you, absolutely, 100%.

But I have seen, and I think most people like me have seen, in the past 8 years that a negotiator, a consolidator, a consensus-builder like Obama just gets their ass handed to him by the overwhelming power of the Koch brothers and the iron grip of the 1%.

What we need, as Sanders says, is a "social revolution." People still have the power of the vote, and if enough people are motivated to participate it *is* still possible to elect representatives that represent the voters rather than the moneyed interests. We need a new FDR, we need a new New Deal, we need a revolution at the ballot box.

Incidentally the program was "On Point."

I agree with you, NoCo. But I don't think there are enough intelligent voters in the country to elect the kind of President and Congressmen that we need.

I guess I remain giddily confident. Everyone I talk to is "mad as hell and not going to take it anymore."

I've said it before, I'll say it again -- somebody who can harness the anger of the American voting public can change the future. Even the Tea Party, before it got co-opted by the Kochs, was fueled by righteous indignation. Just channel that in a productive way and mountains could move.

_Howard wrote:

Bernie doesn't have a chance. He's a socialist. For real.

Here's the other thing. Sanders is seen as a far-left socialist today. But that's only because so many politicians have shifted so far to the right. I don't think the public has shifted as far as our "best the money can buy" politicians, I don't think the politicians represent their constituents anymore..

Sanders is considerably to the right of FDR, who was mainstream enough to get elected in his day by a landslide. Our country needs another FDR at this juncture to save our ship of state, somebody with bold ideas and the cojones to take back the reins of power and give them to the voter again.

Wikipedia wrote:

The New Deal was a series of domestic programs enacted in the United States between 1933 and 1936, and a few that came later. They included both laws passed by Congress as well as presidential executive orders during the first term (1933–37) of President Franklin D. Roosevelt. The programs were in response to the Great Depression, and focused on what historians call the "3 Rs": Relief, Recovery, and Reform. That is Relief for the unemployed and poor; Recovery of the economy to normal levels; and Reform of the financial system to prevent a repeat depression.[1]

The New Deal produced a political realignment, making the Democratic Party the majority (as well as the party that held the White House for seven out of nine Presidential terms from 1933 to 1969), with its base in liberal ideas, the white South, traditional Democrats, big city machines, and the newly empowered labor unions and ethnic minorities. The Republicans were split, with conservatives opposing the entire New Deal as an enemy of business and growth, and liberals accepting some of it and promising to make it more efficient. The realignment crystallized into the New Deal Coalition that dominated most presidential elections into the 1960s, while the opposition Conservative Coalition largely controlled Congress from 1937 to 1963. By 1936 the term "liberal" typically was used for supporters of the New Deal, and "conservative" for its opponents.

https://onpoint.wbur.org/2014/07/21/bernie-sanders-president-2016-hillary-clinton

NoCoPilot wrote:

Here's the other thing.  Sanders is seen as a far-left socialist today.  But that's only because so many politicians have shifted so far to the right.

Sanders is not seen as a socialist. He defines himself as a socialist (more specifically, a Democratic-Socialist). Which is a good thing, in my opinion.

Was FDR a "Democratic Socialist"?

FDR was a Democrat, as you well know.
Bernie Sanders, according to Bernie Sanders, is a Socialist.

Neither of which statements addresses my question.

No. FDR was not a Democratic Socialist.

Perhaps a Sanders candidacy is more viable than you think.

Especially with Warren as Vice.

Don't misunderstand me, NoCo; I am very much in favor of Sanders for President and have been for a couple of decades. Warren running for VP is a great bonus, in my opinion.

The problem is not Sanders - the problem is the electorate. Look at history: the American electorate is incredibly stupid and uninformed. Couple that with the manner in which the elections are held and it is nearly impossible for anyone like Sanders to get the nomination, much less win the election.

An electorate that will Elect Nixon, Reagan, and Bush - TWICE - is not very likely to vote for a Sanders/Warren ticket.

But if he shows up on the ballot here, I will enthusiastically vote for him. He and Warren could make great changes in the country, but only if they are willing to hire hit men to take out the Republicans. I would be willing to make substantial donations to that action.

_Howard wrote:

"I am very much in favor of Sanders for President - the problem is the electorate."

I'd be willing to bet there are 70+ million other people who feel exactly as you do.

Clinton's lead has eroded from 40 points down to 19.

Get ready for Sanders versus Bush in the final.

There was a state poll last week (don't remember which state), in which Sanders led Clinton by seven points.

Polls may be indicative, but they are not predictive. I do not believe Sanders will get the Demo nomination, for no other reason than that he is seen - even by his supporters - as unelectable. And he probably is. As long as there is a strong Southern hatred of anyone to the left of Mussolini, the Dems have to be very careful about saying anything that makes sense to rational people.

You might be right, but then again I believe Billary is unelectable in the South.  So who knows.

Sanders is looking more and more like the Democratic ticket..

Right no, I don't think anyone can accurately predict the primary winner. We don't even know if Joe Biden is going to enter the race. Personally, I don't think he's going to.

There was a national survey last month - one of those "if the election was held today" surveys. It pitted Clinton, Sanders, and Biden against four possible Republican candidates: Trump, Bush, Rubio, and another one. In every case, the Democratic came out on top. The surprise was that Biden had the largest winning margins.

I think Biden strikes a "comfortable" sort of note. But I don't think he would actually be that great as president, and I agree that I don't think he's going to run.

Biden won't run.

He might accept the #2 slot on Hillary's ticket.

No surprise that Democratic candidates win no matter who is pitted against whom. FNC and the right ring blogosphere make a lot of noise but they do not represent the voters. The Kochs can buy airtime but they cannot change the issues.

_Howard wrote:

It pitted Clinton, Sanders, and Biden against four possible Republican candidates: Trump, Bush, Rubio, and another one.

Isn't it funny, when you said "another one" I knew exactly who you meant.  It was that white guy in a blue suit, right?

I said :another one" because I just can't remember. It may have been Fiorina or Carson.

There's no way Biden will run for VP again. I think he could easily will the nomination, but I don't think he wants the job of pres.

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/agenda/

I hope Sanders has a good security detail.

Biden just announced he won't run. Smart man.