You can forget about Bernie running for President in 2020

[scheming daemons]

Everyone will assume Russia is helping him again, even if they aren't.


He may not have known.... but nobody will trust any "grass roots" that gets behind him.

[BannonsLiver]

1. Fuckin A

[DiverDave]

141. He runs, he gets my vote

Just like last time.
I voted for Hillary.
But Bernie speaks for ME

[Joediss]

179. Not me

I would never vote for a socialist again, he is not a democrat. I will never vote for somebody on the far left of the spectrum. These people, Thom Hartman , just about all of free speech TV, were saying they were no Russia coliseum after the election, I was fool by the far left once, never again

[David__77]

182. I would consider voting for him again.

I think he wasn’t the best candidate- it didn’t seem to me like he really wanted to win.

[BoneyardDem]

195. His reliability, his ability to pull in a majority is now in question more than ever.

[lunamagica]

214. He doesn't speak for me. He didn't speak for ne when he voted against immigration reform. He didn't

speak for me when he wanted to dump Vermont's toxic waste on the land where the poor uneducated Hispanic live (Sierra Blanca). He didn't speak for me when he voted (on a stand-alone amendment) to protect the murderous, racist Minute Men, He didn't speak for me when he wanted President Obama to be primaried...I could go on but will stop here.

I agree with the OP. I didn't think his chances in 2020 were good to start with, but now? stict a fork in it.. he is done

[lapucelle]

235. He didn't speak for me on his pro-gun votes,

and his record does not align with our 2016 platform plank on this issue.

[lunamagica]

238. Yup. That's a big issue for me. I can't believe I forgot to list it.

[Sherman A1]

2. Yeah

Okay....

[NCTraveler]

3. Sticking with what Ive been saying.

If he enters the primary, he wins the primary. Easily.

[ProudLib72]

10. How can you say that when you don't know who else would be running?

[NCTraveler]

13. I can easily say it.

I think it is going to be more than a two person field of qualified candidates. If Sanders is one, I think it’s over. He could lose fifteen percent of those who voted for him before, if the field is large, and walk away with it.

[BannonsLiver]

41. Interesting thought

I don't know if I disagree, or agree. I'm not sure Bernie would have done as well as he did in 2016 if it was a bigger field. I think he benefited from a small field as much as anyone. Of course 2016 was 2016. Different set of circumstances will be in play in 2020. I don't think Bernie will run anyway.

[NCTraveler]

55. I dont think he would have done as well either.

The stars aligned for him and he still lost by millions. I don’t think the base that helped him gain has dissolved. He has been campaigning for over a year now. When a senator spends more time out of his state than in it.....

[bettyellen]

54. After the primary, many turned against him. I wont say anything about during the primary

Including that the math isn’t there. We’re seeing now what a lot of the “support” actually was- fake.

[Ken Burch]

152. Why is it still important to you to try to delegitimize the last campaign?

I'm with you on the idea that he shouldn't run again, but why still argue that he shouldn't ever have been allowed in at all?

It's not like retroactively delegitimizing the guy's last campaign helps us for the future.

And while I respect you and your passion on the issues, what YOU are doing is refighting the primaries and YOU need to stop.

[bettyellen]

154. Ummm, I didnt say he should not have run. Im saying he should have stopped running once he lost

The primary. He should absolutely have discouraged people from the shit show they made of the convention.
And he should not have let those half truths stand against Hillary- damning the Dem candidate while keeping his own halo intact. All of that happened AFTER he lost the primary. That’s exactly the problem. That behavior should never happen after the primary. It’s not okay.

[Ken Burch]

220. He stopped when it was decided. HRC didn't go over the top until almost the end.

He had to stay in at least until New York to give the people who wanted to vote for him a chance to do so and to increase the chance of getting the ideas his supporters backed added to the platform.

I don't approve of everything people associated with the guy said or did-hated the 'bros as much as you did and called him out, called out Willy T to(btw, I'm pretty sure that guy was a right-wing troll just here to make trouble), btw, but in fairness, it was a two-way street on that.

Every thread that falsely accused his supporters of voting against women, people of color and even LGBTQ people just because they voted for the candidate they preferred was wrong, as was every thread that implied his supporters didn't are about institutional social oppression when, as people of the left, fighting that would simply have been part of their DNA, was wrong.

And anytime Bernie's Jewishness was used as an argument against him-especially when it was framed, as it was several times, as "the country will never elect a socialist Jew", was indefensible.

As to the convention-in my view, the chants would never have happened if only;

A) The Platform Committee hadn't gone back on HRC's "no TPP" position of the primaries and put the meaningless non-phrase "no bad trade deals" in the platform;

B) Failing that, if HRC had just said, in her acceptance speech "I respect President Obama's opinion about the TPP, but it's not my opionion, I will withdraw the TPP from consideration if elected";

C) Failing that, if they'd at least, at LEAST not let Terry McAuliffe go on tv the day after the Platform Committee vote and say that the TPP might be put through after all if HRC had been elected;

D) Failing that, the party hadn't refused to let the Sanders people do what they originally wished to do and just stand there silently holding signs saying "NO TPP". The signs were confiscated with no justification. What possible case was there to provoke people who'd been needlessly angered? If they were going to be let down, why not just let them have a harmless silent protest?

In my view, had even ONE of those things been done, the chants on the convention floor would not have happened. Why, instead of dong even one of those things, did the party essentially decided to tell Sanders people to, as a banned former poster put it years ago "pound sand and peddle it walking"? What defense could there be for the issue to be handled in as heavy-handed a manner as it was? Knowing, as HRC's campaign did, that that issues was much more important than any other for Bernie's delegates(most of whom had never been to a national convention before and were simply unaware of the possible consequences for their acts), can you offer any theories as to why her people, in the way they ran the convention, would choose it as the question on which they would make a show of saying "Go To HELL!" to Bernie's supporters and to the majority of the country who joined them in opposing that pact?
All HRC had to do was simply say "what I said about this in the primaries is what I'm pledged to now".

That said, if I'd been a delegate, I wouldn't have joined the chants and would have tried to talk them out of chanting-but can you see how the way everything had been handled would have made that nearly impossible?

And again, I condemn everything that was bad behavior in the primaries on the part of the supporters of the candidate I supported.

Most who voted for him voted for her in November. Most worked for her. I'm convinced if that one issue had been handled differently that week, it would have essentially been all.

What I'm fighting against now is the insistence on some(far from all, but some)people who supported HRC from the start on NOT moving on from their feelings about the spring-on NOT letting that be a thing of the past, but instead on continuing what looks like a scorched-earth campaign not only against Bernie(who can take care of himself and who does need to apologize for some things) but against his supporters and often, by extension, against any idea associated with his supporters.

I mean, you can't even say the words "economic justice" or "corporate power" or "class" on this site without somebody jumping down your throat about it and taking it as code for campaigning for Bern.

[bettyellen]

222. I stopped reading when you started to rationalize that inane shit show the BOBs put on at the DNC.

Given what we knew we were facing, it is unforgivable. I’ve never seen such a bunch of naive cranks outside the tea party. And no, it wasn’t all about the TPP.

[Ken Burch]

224. How could you expect those kids to just sit and cheer

After not only the heavy-handedness executed on the platform but also on denying them the right to do a harmless silent protest with signs?

Can you at least agree with me that there was no good reason to not only say no to the harmless assurance they wanted, but then to let somebody imply that what they wanted the assurance against, and what the vast majority of the country agreed with them needed to be prevented, might happen after all, and then to refuse to tolerate them simply silently holding up signs? That there was no greater good served by insisting on antagonizing them and creating distrust among them in that many ways?

Knowing there were residual hard feelings going into this, what possible good came of spending several days provoking them? Why not at least make SOME effort to be conciliatory on this?

I wish they hadn't chanted...I'd have tried to stop them if I'd been there...but if I'd been there, after everything that happened, what would you have had me say to them that could possibly have mollified them?

By contrast, in Denver in 2008, the Obama campaign never did anything that was in any way antagonistic or dismissive of Hillary or her delegates. Their approach was pure conciliation, pure recognition of the value of the things Hillary's campaign centered that year. They never once went "we won, you lost-deal with it!" on her, his(or at some point in the fairly near future their) delegates.

While I think the "No TPP!" chants shouldn't have happened(and maintain they could have been prevented without HRC's campaign having to do anything that would have been in any way unacceptable to you-negotiations about the way HRC addressed the issue in her acceptance speech likely could have stopped them), it's worth noting that HRC left Philly twelve points ahead. She'd never had a lead like that at any previous point in the campaign...it was the largest lead she possibly could have had. So, in practical terms, how much harm could the chants really have done?

The lesson I'm trying to teach on this is that, in ANY future campaign, at the convention, don't crush anybody-don't make a big show of saying "No" on a major issues if at all possible. Avoid heavy-handedness. Understand that it's painful to see one's candidate fall short and that some consideration of the feelings of those experiencing that is in our interest. And then treat the campaign after that, whoever is nominated, as a partnership.

What matters is the future.

To get to the future, it needs to be accepted that it's a waste of time to blame anyone in this party for T___p, or to continue to argue about when anybody should have ended their candidacy before the conventions. It no longer matters and it's not worth driving away people whose votes we HAVE to have as part of our coalition for the future.

If it was the Russians, voter suppression, and Comey, it was JUST the Russians, voter suppression and Comey. Leave it at that and move on so we can come together and win. Please?

[bettyellen]

230. They were provoked into booing every black speaker? For fucks sake they showed

Their asses over and over again for the pettiest if reasons. They did not understand how conversations worked and held out bizarre and undemocratic hopes that the voters will would be overturned. TPP my ass. That was the least of it.


Exactly what the Russians did- lie to those kids- matters and no one is going to just forget it. That those kids were given a microphone and used it to trash Dems during the convention matters. That they were influenced largely by Russian propaganda matters. What doesn’t matter is that this fucks up your narrative.

[Ken Burch]

232. No one was booed for being black.

And even with that, I said they shouldn't have been booed.

What is it you think they believed because of anything Russia said?

She'd always presented herself as hawkish on foreign policy.

And she always took corporate donations.

What way of telling those facts would NOT have made them major issues?

[lunamagica]

215. Please, point to me where she says he shouldn't be allowed to run

[bettyellen]

223. Hes making this up as he goes along.

[Ken Burch]

225. The whole point of the OP is to trash the idea of the guy running, which is pointless.

What's the point of continuing to pressure him not to run(which is what this is about)rather than just doing what we need to do and add most of his economic agenda to our platform-a step which would probably persuade the guy that he doesn't NEED to run?

And what is the point of still focusing on assigning blame to anyone on our side of the spectrum for T___p, rather than focusing on the future and finding a way for people to work together for the future?

Why keep endlessly nursing grudges rather than looking ahead?

What matters is the future.

[lunamagica]

226. See, you couldn't poit it out to me because it isn't there

[Ken Burch]

228. I didn't claim she said he shouldn't be allowed to run.

It's that she is STILL, for no good reason, trying to discredit the campaign he already run-even though there's no good reason to keep attacking that campaign or to be holding grudges towards anyone in or near this party about that year.

What matters is the future.

OK?

[LanternWaste]

237. "why still argue that he shouldn't ever have been allowed in at all?"

"I didn't claim she said he shouldn't be allowed to run..."

"why still argue that he shouldn't ever have been allowed in at all?"



Grudges, indeed.

[LanternWaste]

236. You're simply making inferences and allegations predicated on your own biases.

"The whole point of the OP is to trash the idea of the guy running..."
You're simply making inferences and allegations predicated on your own biases.

Not a clever method of moving the goalposts from your original allegation someone stated Sanders should not be allowed to run to the new and improved "pressure him not to run..."

Or maybe you simply "evolved" during the conversation.

[LisaM]

81. He didn't do well in primaries. He did well in caucuses.

I think they should get rid of caucuses, but if they don't, someone else could come along, engage a relatively small portion of the electorate, and win them. That's why he lost by 4 million votes. Caucuses provide a hugely disproportionate number of delegates from a very low turnout of voters.

[Jim Lane]

119. I agree with you about the early going, but that won't last.

If Bernie runs, there could well be several other candidates, all to his right and dividing the anti-Bernie vote. He wouldn't need a majority, just a plurality, to sweep the early contests.

As the campaign wears on, though, most of those other people will drop out. The field might, as in 2008 and 2016, come down to only two candidates who have a realistic shot at the nomination. Even if there are three candidates, the Democrats don't have winner-take-all primaries. Bernie could win a three-way primary but still get only a minority of the delegates. At the convention, there might be a deal to give a non-Bernie ticket (Cuomo-Harris or the like) a majority of the delegates.

[mcar]

146. "All to his right"

you know this how, exactly?

[Jim Lane]

147. What the HELL is it with reading comprehension on DU?

Here's what I actually wrote, the full sentence: "If Bernie runs, there could well be several other candidates, all to his right and dividing the anti-Bernie vote."

So you ask, "you know this how, exactly?"

Let me try to explain. You seem to think that I claim to "know" that there will be candidates to his right. In fact, I wrote "If Bernie runs" (because I don't know if he will) and "there could well be several other candidates, all to his right" (because I don't know if there will be).

I was addressing one possible state of affairs. I don't know how I could have made it any clearer that I wasn't claiming to "know" that this would in fact be the primary lineup in 2020.

[brush]

160. Ahhh...to those pitching Sanders, he is not a Democrat. The party is not going to allow...

Last edited Sat Feb 17, 2018, 12:42 AM - Edit history (1)

that divisive shit show from 2016 to happen again so Sanders will have to run as an independent, which is what he is.

Good luck with that.

[Jim Lane]

167. I have a question about "The party is not going to allow" it.

There seems to be this belief among some DUers that, in 2015, the DNC held a meeting and magnanimously voted to allow Bernie to run for the Democratic nomination. The corollary is the prediction and/or hope that, in 2019, the DNC will instead vote to bar him, and he will therefore be excluded.

Back here in the real world, there was no such DNC vote. There didn't need to be and, in fact, couldn't be. Qualification for the Democratic primary ballot in each state is determined by the election authorities in that state, pursuant to state law.

Of course, if Bernie is on the ballot (through petition signatures or whatever that state requires) and wins the primary, the DNC could refuse to seat that state's duly elected delegates. At least, my guess is that it would be in the DNC's legal power to do so. The PR hit from such an anti-democratic action would be enormous. In 2016, more than three-quarters of Bernie's supporters voted for the Democratic nominee in the general election, but DNC high-handedness in 2020 could eviscerate that support.

So what course, specifically, are you expecting the party to take?

[brush]

168. My take is as stated. Who wants that divisive crap from 2016 repeated again from someone...

whose loyalty to the party was so non-existent that he quit the party as soon as he finished using it.

State Dem officials will surely note that if he tries to rejoin again.

Some will feel as I do and some may even want to forgive and let him use the party again—then we'll be

off and running with divisiveness again.

Nothing good will result from that.

I say, no thank you.

Let him run as an independent, which is what he is.

[Jim Lane]

173. Sorry, I still don't understand your answer

Believe me, I understand that plenty of people on DU don't want Bernie to run for the 2020 nomination. Not all of them would agree with your prescription that he should run as an independent, given that such a run would virtually guarantee a Republican victory, but that's a separate issue.

Whether you want Bernie to run or not, my question is about this statement: "State Dem officials will surely note that if he tries to rejoin again."

First, contrary to a common DU urban legend, Bernie did not change his registration from Independent to Democratic, run for the nomination, then change it back. Vermont doesn't have partisan registration. From his first election to the Senate (and, in fact, before then), he has always been a registered voter in the same status as Democrats like Howard Dean and Pat Leahy. He has been listed on the Senate rolls as an Independent and has been a member of the Democratic caucus. None of that has changed at any time.

Second, even if some deluded state party officials believe a lie that he has decided "to rejoin again," what would they then do? As a general rule, Democratic Party officials do not have the power to bar disfavored candidates from the primary ballot. I haven't researched the law of every jurisdiction that holds a primary. If someone wants to fund my trip to American Samoa I'll be glad to look into it there. What I do know is that a primary is the means by which grassroots voters, rather than party oligarchs, choose party nominees up and down the ticket.

[brush]

194. Again, no one wants the divisiveness another Sanders campaign as a Dem will bring to the...

2020 race, whatever his party status is in Vermont and whether he caucuses with the Democrats in the Senate or not.

His continual attacks on the party during the 2016 campaign are not forgotten.

But I personally don't think we have to worry as there will be new, younger, progressive candidates who will emerge—possibly Harris, Kennedy, Booker, Castro, maybe Warren and others who don't have the "been there done that" divisiveness baggage that Sanders carries and who will be attractive to the Dem base, including the younger voters who backed the new voice who was Sanders in 2016.

Sanders is no longer new, in fact he'll be nearing 80.

Let him run as an independent. We'll take our chances as to whether or not that will help the decidedly weakened trump smeared by adultery/sex scandals and special counsel investigations.

[Me.]

205. Don't Worry About It

If he wants to run again he'll have to release those tax forms so you can stick a fork in any such a run.

[lunamagica]

216. This. But he probably thinks he can get away with it again

[Me.]

219. Then He Will Have A Choice To Make

Cough them up or adjust his thinking

[David__77]

183. Youre so right.

In 1996, Lyndon LaRouche ran in the Democratic primary against Clinton. He got a sufficient vote in Arkansas that would have entitles him to delegates, had the Democratic Party not disallowed it.

I see no scenario in which the same thing is done with regard to Sanders in 2020.

[R B Garr]

159. LOL, more prefabricated 2020 DNC conspiracy theories!

The JPR’s sure love those conspiracies, too.

[brush]

157. Guess he'll be running as an independent, what he is btw, because the Democratic Party...

Last edited Sat Feb 17, 2018, 02:43 AM - Edit history (1)

is not going to allow that divisive shit show from 2016 to happen again.

[Lee-Lee]

12. I agree. He has a base and inertia

With no clear front runner going in like we had last year I expect a very crowded field early in the primary.

A crowded field means that you win states without a huge percentage of the votes because so many players dilute the vote.

He has a decidcated base that will deliver him wins in these primaries. They won’t be majorities, but they will be a 20-35% that wins a primary on a crowded ballot.

[NCTraveler]

14. +1

See post 13.

[scheming daemons]

17. His "large base" has now been exposed as being fake, or easily duped

People don't like finding out they were duped by the Russians to support him.


He'll lose most of his support.

[NCTraveler]

33. I dont think they have been exposed as either.

[Demsrule86]

165. some had to have been the Russians... after this indictments this much is clear. I don't

think he will win a Democratic Primary.

[Lee-Lee]

38. The vote totals in the last primary say otherwise

[scheming daemons]

40. Those were the easily duped. They'll be angry at themselves for falling for Russian active measures

[Jim Lane]

92. I'm among the many who weren't duped.

My reasons for preferring Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton were their respective records, easily verified through multiple sources, on the issues of ________, __________, ___________, etc.

Filling in the blanks with the slightest detail about why I thought Bernie was better might get a quick post removal from the ever-vigilant Bernie-haters. If you were reading DU during 2016 you can probably do a pretty good job of imagining what I would say.

In all the time since Bernie announced in 2015, I haven't heard one single bit of evidence that any of my reasons were falsehoods promulgated by Russian trolls (or by anyone else, for that matter).

[BoneyardDem]

51. His base was manufactured in part with Russian assisance

.....enough so, that his losses to Hillary in the Primary would have been even greater had it not been for his Russian assistants.

and yes, I intended the uses of assistance & assistants

[bettyellen]

57. Also Republicans in open primaries helped.

[Codeine]

124. Exactly.

They’re wandering in here babbling about packed stadiums without considering the reason those stadiums were filled is because of the venom being spewed at Clinton by the Russian bot farms.

These are the same assholes who fucking delighted themselves by photoshopping feces on to Clinton’s pantsuits and working each other up to jackpine orgasms with their dirty little Pizzagate fantasies.

[BoneyardDem]

129. So true

[Joediss]

192. Agree

As I look back , I was duked in the primary . I believed all this shit that was being spewed out about Clinton, I did voted for Clinton in the general election , however. But I do feel like I was lied to by Bernie and his supporters.

[Jim Lane]

204. What lie did Bernie tell you?

I don't much cared about "his supporters." There were more than 13 million real United States citizens who voted for him, and some of them went off the deep end, even before we consider Russians or bots.

But you wrote, "I do feel like I was lied to by Bernie ...." so I'd like to know what your basis for that feeling is.

[NurseJackie]

76. Yes. This. Exactly. Thank you!

[BlueTsunami2018]

79. I wasnt duped to support him.

I genuinely believe in his message and policy positions. I mean, what’s not to like? He’s a pro-labor liberal’s dream candidate.

I also had no problem switching right over to Secretary Clinton when she got the nod. The Russians didn’t get me on that front either.

Very many of us did the same.

Depending on who’s running next time, he almost certainly would get my vote again.

[lindalou65]

90. Bernie supporter

K & R! I was a strong Bernie supporter and remain one. I expect to support him if he runs in 2020. I too voted for Hillary after she become the Democratic presidential candidate.

[JackInGreen]

133. We can already see right here

The arguments against him and the self righteous satisfaction that he can be dismissed because (pick anything)

[brush]

211. Which also points to the divisiveness that comes with Sanders as a Dem candidate.

We don't need that again in 2020, especially when it's already started again and it's only early 2018.

If he wants to run let him run as an independent, which is what he is.

We'll take our chances as to whether or not that will help the decidedly weakened trump, smeared by adultery/sex scandals and special counsel investigations.

[Joediss]

181. Same here

I would never vote in the primary for somebody on the far left again. I feel like I was duked by Bernie , Thom Hartman, free speech TV, except for Stephenie miller . I would never trust these people again.

[David__77]

184. Thank you.

I voted for Sanders because I thought he was the best option of the top two candidates, and voted for Clinton in the general election for the same reason. I could certainly see voting for Sanders again.

[lunamagica]

217. What's not to like? I have plety of stuff I do nott like about him

[DiverDave]

144. "Easily duped"?

So, I'm so stupid that I believed what he was saying?
The same things he has been saying for years?
Yep, just an idiot.

[tblue37]

65. That is how Trump defeated the other 16 TOP candidates--they split the slightly less

insane GOP vote.

[Gothmog]

28. I disagree

[R B Garr]

44. Disagree. He only got where he did because he

was never questioned and never challenged. A Bernie who will be held accountable or questioned is not sustainable. He does not deviate from his stump speech.

His hypocrisy will be evident, i.e., his TAXES and hypocrisy about transparency.

[MuseRider]

48. While I do not agree that he got

there by not being questioned he certainly had many reasons he needed to be questioned more. He does need to be totally transparent. We may disagree with a lot of this about Bernie but I agree that he needs to answer to quite a few things, like the taxes, if he decides to run again. Personally I would rather have someone younger who is like him, best of all a female.

[R B Garr]

95. Yes, more transparency would probably be expected. nt

[NCTraveler]

60. The media will not start questioning him.

And multiple candidates firing off at him won’t have a huge impact. He embodies privileged status.

[R B Garr]

97. Yes, privileged status is an excellent description.

The difference might be that the shoe would be on the other foot which would be destabilizing, and he clings to the familiar only. This time, he would be the one having to kiss up to those that didn’t vote for him. Only Hillary had that burden last time.

[Cha]

66. NO.

[NCTraveler]

69. Its what I truly see happening.

It would destroy us.

I think we are going to have a number of people entering the race. That serves Sanders well.

[brush]

162. He's not a Democrat. There won't be a repeat of that 2016 divisiveness. The party would be crazy...

to allow that again as it would guarantee a trump win.

[ehrnst]

93. Why do you think that? Why would you think that?

[NCTraveler]

120. .

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10241807

I have been saying this since he started becoming more aggressive campaigning and holding on strong to his national audience. I know some completely disagree. As things stand, it’s still how I see it happening.

[ehrnst]

126. I think that prior to vetting, it's a bit premature to crown anyone.

There are some questions that have to be answered, not the least of which is the issue of personal finances.

That's baseline for vetting a Democratic candidate.

Then there is the issue of health. Having had cancer, and the issues that come with that age, particularly in men, are a factor.

[NCTraveler]

130. Who will be asking them? The media?

Kamala or Gillibrand will be vetted from every direction. Sanders, only on discussion boards and the like.

[SidDithers]

105. So, it'll be a coronation?...nt

sid

[NCTraveler]

127. And a disaster.

I’m hoping he doesn’t run. An endorsement won’t have even close to the same impact.

Coronation work. I’ve seen him talked about regularly in terms normally confined to religion.

[Iggo]

140. God, not another one. (n/t)

[R B Garr]

148. LOL!

Touché!

[TeamPooka]

142. A caucus, maybe. Primaries, not so much.

[Ken Burch]

151. I don't think he does.

There are enough forces in the party who have an investment in stopping the guy that they would inevitably coalesce around someone else.

The toxicity towards him among some demographics(mainly the older voters in those demographics)isn't going to change.

The people making an issue of the guys taxes won't let up, and neither will the party's big donors.

If he runs, and no one emerges as a natural challenger in the primaries, I predict Warren will be drafted to stop him.

[brush]

163. He's not a Democrat. That what's going to stop him as the party would be crazy to allow that...

divisiveness from 2016 again. That would guarantee a trump win.

He should've stay a Democrat.

That was a big mistake.

[Ken Burch]

231. The result against T___p would have been exactly the same if Bern had been barred from running.

It's a waste of time to argue against his presence last time-his campaign didn't cause T___p and there was never any point at which everybody was all in for HRC and we were a lock for victory.

Nor were we going to do better if fewer people had voted that year, which is all that would have come of barring the guy.

We wouldn't have done any better with a debate-free primary and a blander platform. And we wouldn't have done any better if the attack ads against Trump had started earlier-the GOP contest had already decisively proved that attack ads NEVER worked on him.

I wish HRC were in the White House now.

And I don't think Bernie should run again.

But it serves no purporse to keep attacking him for running last time.

We can't DO anything about last time.

Why not focus solely on the future, and on building unity for the future?

Besides which, based on the way his personality seems to work, you're probably far more likely to cause him to run again by continuing to say he shouldn't have run last time. The best way to keep him out is to let that go.

[brush]

234. I don't agree at all. Some Sanders voters stayed home or voted Stein in the GE...

Last edited Sun Feb 18, 2018, 09:03 AM - Edit history (2)

because of the anti-hillary Russian active measures, thus the outcome of the election was affected.

But I'm leaving it alone unless he tries to run again as a Democrat, which he is not.

If he does, all bets are off.

Let him run as the independent he is.

We'll take our chances against him and the weaken trump damaged by adultery/sex scandals and special counsel investigations.

[lunamagica]

218. Hmmm...no. I think he does because not enough people will vote for him. It's that simple

Since he ran the last time, I've seen a lot of his supporters that for one reason or another don't support him anymore. Some even on this board.

But I have seen no one, and I mean NO ONE who didn't like him before change their mind and become a supporter. Simple math

[Ken Burch]

221. As I said, I don't think he actually WANTS to run.

My sense in '16 was that he wanted Elizabeth Warren to run first, as did most of those who eventually supported him) and then only ran when she stayed out and it looked as if the issues he raised would not have been part of the discussion at all.

I'm one of the ones who doesn't want him to run.

The case some of us have made is that, rather than attacking him on a personal level and trying to keep those who disliked him last time still disliking him, the focus should be on embracing enough of the agenda his campaign was associated with(including a commitment to get corporate donors out of politics and to re-orient this party towards working-class voters of ALL races) to persuade the guy that he doesn't NEED to run.

Why not just approach it that way, rather than have this continual focus on calling the guy out and, increasingly, blaming him for T___p?

If we can convince those who supported him last time that the party has changed, that they have a place in as much as anyone else, that they things they want will be PART of what we work for, we won't see a second Bernie candidacy. And we'll have lost nothing in choosing that approach.

Could you live with that?

[lunamagica]

227. The guy want to run. In fact, he has bbeen running for 2020 since Nov. '16

[Ken Burch]

229. That's your interpretation.

What I think he's doing is simply trying to keep his supporters together to work for the ideas they back. Unfortunately, this seems to be the only way to do that.

Would you agree that there's no reason to try to break those people up as a group or to try to discourage them from working as a group for what they want?

The way to prevent the guy from running again is simply to add the things his supporter back-vitually all of which are popular-to what we already support as a party.

[brush]

155. Ahhh...he lost the primaries easily in 2016. Many new, younger, attractive candidates will emerge.

We've been there and done that.

[Adrahil]

175. Bernie now has two strikes.

Strike one- he refused to release his taxes and reneged on his promise to do so.

Strike two- his campaign was supported by the Russians, and he has the weakest damn response to it. He's not in cahoots with them, but he sure is willing to accept their help.


Bernie is done.

[moondust]

4. Lynch mob now!

Lynch mob now! Lynch mob now! Lynch mob now!

[maxsolomon]

5. I wasn't even worrying about it

Sen. Sanders knows how old he is.

[DonViejo]

6. How can you say that? Has Mueller's final investigation report been released?

The only thing that can be said right now is, "the tip of the iceberg has been exposed."

[uponit7771]

7. Sad to say on the other hand I still have seen his full tax returns either

[alarimer]

8. He had not a fucking thing to do with it and you know it.

This is stupid.

[scheming daemons]

19. People don't like to find out they've been duped.

We now found out the Russians were actively helping him.

He had the aid of the Kremlin, whether he wanted it or not.


We now know that a chunk of his "grass roots" support were fake, Russian operatives.


Any "grass roots" behind him in 2020 will be assumed to be Russian.



He's done in Presidential politics.

[alarimer]

27. Just stop with the bullshit.

If you assume the "grass roots" are Russian bots or whatever, that's YOU not using critical thinking skills because you hate that Bernie Sanders is more popular than your choice. T

[scheming daemons]

31. I'm assuming nothing. I'm reading it in Mueller's indictment.

The Russian operation actively worked to help Bernie's campaign.

That's *IN* there.


Whether Bernie knew about it is significant, because it would be worse if he did... but it isn't material.


Any "groundswell" of support for Bernie in 2020... and large influx of funds.... will be *ASSUMED* by the public of coming from Russian active measures.


He was helped by Russia. That's a fact in the indictment.


He won't be able to escape that in 2020.

[George II]

49. According to the indictment (I'm paraphrasing) Russians posed as Sanders supporters....

...that's "grass roots". So Americans will be highly skeptical of his supporters in 2020, wondering if they are genuine or are Russians posing as supporters again.

That's facing reality, not "hate".

[askyagerz]

86. Guess what

Hillary will never be president... that's just reality... what's the f'n point of this conversation?

[Codeine]

128. And there it is.

This isn’t about Clinton. It’s about Bernie’s useful idiots being on the Kremlin payroll. You’re outed, comrades. Reflexively spewing Hillary-hate won’t help you now.

[askyagerz]

137. Yep we all commrades

Sorry the only reason I picked Sanders over Clinton was because she voted for the Iraq war and he didnt. Same reason I voted for Obama in the primaries. Does that make me a sucker?

I sure havent ever believed anything that comes from Facebook lol.

Just because Bernie has a few idiot supporters doesn't mean the majority are Russian operatives...

[brush]

166. Well, one big point is he's not a Democrat so pls no more 2016 divisiveness. Another point is...

it's not about Hillary, and still another is Sanders' name and support is now associated with Russians helping him.

Why would the Democratic Party allow him on our ballots again, especially after he foolishly left the party again.

[David__77]

188. It may be sour grapes.

...

[boston bean]

94. In worry about no vote on russian sanctions.

[Jim Lane]

96. The usefully vague term "supporters" lends itself to a totally false impression

Bernie's grassroots (no need for the scare quotes) supporters included, IIRC, approximately 2,000,000 donors, 13,000,000 voters, and uncounted but large number of people showing up at his rallies and volunteering for his campaign.

How many of those people were actually "Russians posing as supporters"?

As I understand it, some undetermined fraction of the tweets, Facebook posts, and other social media hits that purported to be from genuine American supporters of Bernie were actually the work of Russian operatives (human and/or bot). The Democrats who despise Bernie are free to assume that such Russian intervention completely explains all of Bernie's support. In fact, I hope they assume it.

[R B Garr]

161. More nonreality and pure fabrication. There are criminal

indictments now, actual facts and info to use. MSNBC reporting a million per week operation, heavily funded and targeted to stir the divisiveness — through Bernie’s campaign. Facts now, CRIMINAL indictments.

Phone typing, so count all the punctuation marks again, if desired.

[bettyellen]

62. After the primary it was quite apparent- RT articles and stupid memes and yeah...

People got dragged in and kept doing it up to and sadly after the convention. Those people did not have the good of the nation at heart.

[askyagerz]

84. The Russians saw a chance to put a wedge between the left

Because they had a candidate in their pocket called trump. It was about keeping Bernie voters home on election day. According to scheming daemon' s logic the Russians just help anyone so there definitely must not have been any collusion between Russia and trump. Everyone can go home now...

[Cobalt Violet]

87. Yeah like all the people who went to all his rally's were imported from Russia.

[brush]

164. Critical thinking should tell you he's not a Democrat and the party would be crazy to invite that...

divisiveness from 2016 to repeat itself.

He should've stayed a Democrat.

That was a big mistake.

[emulatorloo]

170. Latest 2020 polling show Biden polling higher than Bernie in Trump match-ups

So it appears Biden is more popular than Bernie at this point. Popularity is fragile, we can’t really live or die by that. As you know, Hillary had favorables in the high 60’s when she left State.

[George II]

47. Or...........

[Eliot Rosewater]

26. What? Is that in the reporting that it is a known fact that neither he or anyone in his

campaign did? I want to read that, please direct me to that.

[alarimer]

29. You are casting aspersions with no evidence

[Eliot Rosewater]

30. How in the FUCK is my ASKING you to point me to the story that proves your assertion is me

making aspersions?

[alarimer]

34. You are the one that Sanders knew about Russian interference.

I think it's up to you to prove that.

[Eliot Rosewater]

37. WHERE did I say that PROVE it this INSTANT or RETRACT it THIS INSTANT

[George II]

52. "Prove" something that wasn't said? Really?

[Eliot Rosewater]

59. I was amazed to see such an absolute statement made so I just had to inquire.

[BoneyardDem]

56. your knee jerk, defensive, apologist reactions are funny

[scheming daemons]

36. The indictment says the Russians actively helped him. It does *NOT* say he knew about it.

My OP explicitly says it does not matter if he knew.


Any "grass roots" support for him in 2020 will be assumed to be tainted by Russia.

[Eliot Rosewater]

39. Exactly, to which this was said by someone

He had not a fucking thing to do with it and you know it.

This is stupid.

to which I asked for a link to this assertion that he had not a fucking thing to do with it, obviously I am making the point the indictment or story did NOT say he did or did not...

So to CATEGORICALLY say that is false, of COURSE!

[BoneyardDem]

64. Bernie was given ample opportunity to reign in the bot messaging....

...and well as some of the false messaging of the Bernie Bros. He made a deliberate choice not to do that. I think this is one indication that he knew there were outside sources helping his campaign and not sources that were his base or his grassroots groups. He chose to quietly accept their assistance. This is just my opinion based on observations.

[Jim Lane]

101. Not just bullshit -- DOUBLE bullshit!

First, you assert that Bernie could have reined in "the bot messaging" (which, in the context of this thread, obviously means Russian bots). Just how, exactly, did he have "ample opportunity" to do that? Do you think Putin takes orders from Bernie? When Bernie visited Russia years ago, he set in place some kind of sleeper network that he could have activated in 2016?

If by "the bot messaging" you mean something in addition to or instead of whatever the Russians were doing, please elaborate on who was doing it and how Bernie could have reined them in.

Second, here are some facts about Bernie's response to those "Bernie Bros":

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernard Sanders said Sunday that he doesn’t want support from “Bernie bros,” a group backing the Vermont senator who often attack his rival Hillary Clinton in crude and sexist ways.

In an interview on CNN’s “State of the Union,” Mr. Sanders disavowed the largely online group that has tried to raise him up by bashing Mrs. Clinton for being a woman.

“I have heard about it. It’s disgusting,” Mr. Sanders said. “Look, we don’t want that crap. We will do everything we can, and I think we have tried.” [Source: "Sanders addresses ‘Bernie Bros,’ says he doesn’t want support from sexists"]

It was inevitable that Hillary Clinton was going to face some opposition just based on gender. If you think that the Sanders campaign could have unilaterally undone millennia of patriarchal oppression and totally eliminated sexism from the campaign, I for one would be very interested in knowing the particulars.

[BoneyardDem]

109. Bernie is lucky to have you in his rah-rah section

But he failed miserably to refute and correct the negative and outright lies/messaging that was blamed on Bernie supporters. With this new indictment, we can be sure that much of it came from bots. Some of it was extremely hateful. Most of us who cared to step back and watch with a critical eye, didn't have a difficult time understanding why Bernie did not refute the hateful messages propagated and forwarded on his behalf.

[Jim Lane]

112. Yes, he is, and he realizes it.

He's already promised me that, after he's elected, I'll be given command of one of the re-education camps for political dissidents.

Be nice to me now and I'll see to it that you're assigned to the tent closest to the Port-a-Potties. You'll thank me when it gets cold out.

[BoneyardDem]

123. That's a super strange admission.

[David__77]

187. Cold War mindset.

Who did the Soviets support in 1984 - Mondale or Reagan? Should that have mattered to Democrats and progressives?

[Fiendish Thingy]

9. I dont think there were many Russians at those the packed stadium rallies

Putin wants us to mistrust any grassroots support, don’t you get that? That’s where our power lies.

[TNLib]

63. I'm guessing it was more Fake online support

I saw allot of Bernie Bros that seemed just like Trump supporters online. I wonder if they were spreading anti-hillary rhetoric in a similar style.

[George II]

91. Maybe the Russians encouraged them to show up? And they weren't all that packed anyway.

[Fiendish Thingy]

100. You are mistaken

Sanders regularly had Crowds bigger than Trump’s and Hillary’s, which IIRC, tended to be held in smaller venues.

Sanders often had crowds over 10,000. I don’t think there were many Russians at those rallies, or people who were influenced to att nd the rallies because of Russian influence on social media.

[George II]

136. Sanders had crowds "reported" over 10,000. Check the indictment, looks like the Russian groups....

....working online inflated reports of crowd size.

Plus, some of the online groups themselves and their followers were huge:

"the size of many ORGANIZATION-controlled groups had grown to hundreds of thousands of online followers."

[Codeine]

118. It was the bullshit being spewed by the Broskis

that got those stadiums packed with slack-jawed no-nothings in the first place.

[Demsrule86]

208. I am not sure...always a discrepancy between who went to the rally and the vote.

Some could have been paid.

[MuseRider]

11. Bernie will know what to do and do what he wants.

They were going after Hillary, there WAS no one else on the Democratic side to support against her. I am not upset about this, don't think it was because they liked him or he liked them.

Don't assume that we all are that damned stupid not to be able to think enough to understand what happened.

Oooooh Bernie is dead! Long live whoever but the Bernie is dead! LOL, you all crack me up.

[MuseRider]

32. LOL

yeah, that is exactly what it is.

[Adrahil]

176. Why is his response so damned weak?

I mean, I do think he was used as a tool against Hillary, but his response has been pathetically weak.

[MuseRider]

186. Bernie tends to not want to discuss

things he was not involved in or created. He has a mission and that is what he wants to talk about.

Why should he discuss it. Because it was against Hillary? Would it help? The lines are drawn and have been for a very long time as this, and other threads prove.

I have not read much about what he has said but what more needs to be said other than, I had nothing to do with it and this has to be fixed? If he has said that much I don't see the need for more.

As to the interference in the whole he has spoken about it.

[Adrahil]

190. He needs to discuss it because too many of his followers fell victim to it.

And frankly, he inadvertently helped perpetuate it.

He needs to recognize that his constant attacks on the "establishment" played into the Russian strategy. He needs to some out and say that unity is important, and that while criticisms of the "establishment" can be perfectly accurate and valid, it's more important to reject Russian psychological ops and defeat the Republicans, even if it dims his personal political ambitions. There is too much at stake.


And why won't he release his tax returns? At first, I just put it down to him being the classic "messy professor" type. Now I suspect there is something in there he thinks will be embarrassing.

[Jim Lane]

198. What you demand that he say about party unity is what he SAID at the convention.

Beginning in 2015, he undertook the arduous task of a nationwide campaign, after having previously run only in the small state of Vermont, and while being, as his detractors will be quick to tell you, very, very old. He went from the low single digits in the polls to mounting a serious challenge to a party-establishment choice who, before the race, had been widely considered invincible. Nevertheless, he came up short.

He must have been personally disappointed.

Nevertheless, he spoke at the convention and gave a ringing endorsement of Hillary Clinton. He didn't mention the Russian sideshow. In terms of his key objective -- reaching any "Bernie or Bust"ers among his supporters and getting them on board with the party nominee -- that certainly wasn't what would have been effective. Instead, he addressed the major substantive policy choices facing the country and showed how, on issue after issue, Clinton was far superior to Trump. As he said:

By these measures, any objective observer will conclude that -- based on her ideas and her leadership -- Hillary Clinton must become the next president of the United States. The choice is not even close.

[Adrahil]

200. It's always been Lukewarm.

On the campaign trail, he couldn't bring himself to give her a full-throated endorsement. He always couched it in the need to defeat Trump. That was seen by the BoBs as code for "I still hate her," and some used it as an excuse to justify not being "able" to vote for her.

Also, if he recognized Russian meddling at the time, why did wait so long to concede the nomination? If he could the efforts to discredit, didn't he think he had more of a role to play in countering that narrative?

I dunno.... it bothers me that Bernie seem to always think it's about Bernie.

[MuseRider]

213. Perhaps you should write to him.

I know I cannot answer your questions because I have not felt the need to ask him personally about these issues. I can only answer what I know or speculate and I chose not to guess about it all.

[leftstreet]

15. Meh. He'll easily be the frontrunner at this point

The average voter pays NO attention to the Russian collusion stuff

Seriously

[scheming daemons]

23. I think you're wrong. People hate to find out they were duped.

Bernie supporters online will now be assumed to be Russian bots or bad actors.

[Ace Rothstein]

61. You'll really think Trump supporters care that they were the targets of Russian interference?

They don't care.

[ehrnst]

74. Anyone could be "the frontrunner" at this point, because there's no race....

And no vetting.

When the candidates get real vetting, which won't happen until all release their financial information, then "frontrunners" can be determined....

[Demsrule86]

209. That is not true...I thought he should not run in 20 anyway because we need younger fresher

candidates. Democrats are paying attention and that is who votes in primaries...

[shanny]

16. So you're OK with foreign powers picking and/or disqualifying our candidates?

Good to know.

[BannonsLiver]

18. That's some creative spin

[shanny]

24. It's the company I keep

i.e. backatcha

[4now]

20. I hope we will be much smarter next time

[samir.g]

22. Stein will run again, if not indicted. She has no shame.

[Snotcicles]

35. Indicted for what? nt

[BannonsLiver]

43. She should be indicted for that fucking recount scam she ran

Though I doubt that is what the poster was talking about.

Glad I wasn't one of the suckers who fell for that scam.

[oberliner]

53. Lots of DUers sent her money

It was a sad time.

[samir.g]

82. probably for helping Russia interfere with our election

[Adrahil]

42. Plenty of us knew..... and Jill Stein certainly knew. NT

[demmiblue]

46. If I were able to go back in time...

I would still vote for Bernie in the primaries, and I would still vote for Hillary in the general.

I have no solid preference for 2020... had more before the Franken witch hunt (Schiff is looking good).

[Jim Lane]

106. I completely agree with you about both of my 2016 votes

What we have in this thread is a whole bunch of people who never supported Bernie but who are claiming that people who did support him will be alienated from him.

[Blue_Tires]

50. It's sad because even in late 2015 I was noticing

a lot of the more 'vocal' Bernie fans on Twitter were WAY over the fucking top in their vitriol against Hillary, Obama, the DNC, black voters, the South, etc... And I commented repeatedly that Bernie would have to reel in his nutbar crazies to have any chance of winning... But I guess the campaign managers conflated batshit insanity with genuine youthful enthusiasm and like the GOP with Trump, believed they could let the Frankenstein monster grow big and strong while still keeping it caged and controlled -- But the internet doesn't work that way so that's why so many Berners were still shitting on Hillary daily long after their candidate conceded and long after Trump was sworn in...

[EffieBlack]

111. Exactly!

[emulatorloo]

171. Typical Jeff Weaver, imho

Incompetent Hothead who never expanded the base, just shoveled Red Meat.

[Wounded Bear]

58. Love Bernie, but I wouldn't be sorry if he stayed out of the race...

He already did a lot to move the party back to the left where it belongs.

I'm thankful for that, but I think we need some fresh blood in 2020.

[hueymahl]

75. Agreed - he did a lot of good

But we need new leadership.

[WhiteTara]

80. Some good and some harm

I hope he stays home with Ralph Nadir.

[mountain grammy]

99. I agree. He energized people who had been turned off by the sheer

corruption of corporate and 1% money buying politicians. I do think his emphasis on poverty and economic injustice is greatly needed in America today and his success made the Democratic party listen and address those issues. I truely believe that's why we won the popular vote. In fact, I'm quite sure we won the election. Thank you, Bernie.

[dawg]

67. I think he'll have a shot at the nomination if he runs.

The early primaries would essentially be Bernie vs. several "not-Bernie's", and the "not-Bernie" vote could easily be diluted enough to make Bernie the front-runner.

I don't think the Russian interference would make a difference to most of Bernie's hardcore supporters. (And, unless it can somehow be proven that he was complicit, it *shouldn't* matter.)

That being said, I kind of hope he doesn't run.

[BlueDog22]

68. Sad

It is sad. I really liked Bernie.

[BannonsLiver]

72. I once admired John Edwards

Everybody gets it wrong at some point.

[BlueDog22]

73. So Did I...

[AtheistCrusader]

70. So essentially the Russians destroyed two Democratic candidates for the price of one?

[appalachiablue]

125. Looks that way here

[Blue_Tires]

71. As long as loons like Nomiki Konst are in his camp, Sanders ain't winning shit

Still has her same moldy, tired-ass talking points. But at least she's finally admitted there was some interference from Moscow, which is a huge leap forward for her:

Link to tweet

[SleeplessinSoCal]

77. Bernie has a core of support. it's a cult of personality.

So many on the left and middle left are fed up with DNC, even as it successfully makes gains in special elections.

In 2020 the economy will have a loud voice. I suspect if the stock market crashes and economy tanks, Bernie will win.

[Jim Lane]

108. Right, no one could possibly support Bernie on the issues. Keep telling yourself that. (n/t)

[SleeplessinSoCal]

158. I do not believe that to be true. I know many passionate . . .

Bernie backers. But they continually identify with him rather than his agenda. Laziness? I don't know. But the very same people hate Hillary with the same passion that they love him. Kinda scary.

[Motownman78]

138. You know who else has a "Cult of Personality"?

Donald Trump

[SleeplessinSoCal]

156. absolutely. n/t

[pamdb]

78. Bernie

Good.

I like Bernie, I voted for him in the Michigan Primary.
But he's just too old.

Sorry.

I would love Joe Biden to run but I think he's even year older than Bernie.

[Cobalt Violet]

83. He's going to win.

Bernie 2020!

[BannonsLiver]

85. Lol

[Codeine]

116. One assumes the assist from Putin and his bros

won’t be as effective this time. Without the Kremlin’s cyber boys on the case he won’t find it as simple as 2016.

[yellowwoodII]

89. Why this need to denegrate Bernie?

This only serves to split the party.

I liked Bernie. I voted for him in the primary, but Of Course I voted for Hillary even though I never forgave her for voting for the Iraq War.

I know he and Biden are past the age where either can be the Presidential candidate.

And, no, I'm not too happy with the Dems. In Illinois, for instance, our Democratic leaders have chosen a three-time billionaire Pritzer for Governor already before the primary. We have some excellent candidates for Governor that we can support with genuine enthusiasm.

And they "negotiated" us into tax benefits for private and religious schools at the state level. God forbid that they negotiate us into building "a Wall."

Instead of fighting over the past, we should be searching for a viable candidate who really shares our values.

[Blue_true]

98. I am ok with him running if he choses to.

I think that we will have better choices. If Bernie and Biden do run, I want to see them promise out the gate to serve only 1 term if they win the Presidency.

[applegrove]

102. Of course he did not know. Bernie has integrity.

[nycbos]

103. I hope so.

Bernie needs to explain his no vote on Russia sanctions now.

[Jim Lane]

110. You say that "Bernie needs to explain" a vote that he explained at the time.

Any decent search engine should quickly direct you to "Sanders Statement on Iran and Russia Sanctions" on his Senatorial website:

Thursday, June 15, 2017

WASHINGTON, June 15 – Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) issued the following statement Thursday after he voted against a bill that would impose new sanctions on Iran and Russia:

"I am strongly supportive of the sanctions on Russia included in this bill. It is unacceptable for Russia to interfere in our elections here in the United States, or anywhere around the world. There must be consequences for such actions. I also have deep concerns about the policies and activities of the Iranian government, especially their support for the brutal Assad regime in Syria. I have voted for sanctions on Iran in the past, and I believe sanctions were an important tool for bringing Iran to the negotiating table. But I believe that these new sanctions could endanger the very important nuclear agreement that was signed between the United States, its partners and Iran in 2015. That is not a risk worth taking, particularly at a time of heightened tension between Iran and Saudi Arabia and its allies. I think the United States must play a more even-handed role in the Middle East, and find ways to address not only Iran's activities, but also Saudi Arabia's decades-long support for radical extremism."

[SidDithers]

104. DU rec...

Sid

[waterwatcher123]

107. Russians did prompt anyone to come to our cacus.

The assertion of this thread is utterly ridiculous.

[Exotica]

113. For sure Russia will push him again because he is a massively divisive figure

I so hope he doesn't run, plus he is too old to last for 8 years of the stress. I have no particular candidate now, but surely we can run a non octogenarian (soon). Same for Biden.

I think the OP is correct, much of Sanders' support will, rightly or wrongly, be seen as Russian-generated/manipulated.

Please do not run, Sen. Sanders.

[Codeine]

132. Theyre pushing him now, right here.

Suddenly DU is flooded with his adoring fans again, just in time to defend and deflect from this new information.

Fuck me.

[jalan48]

114. And, Wall Street and the Big Banks are ecstatic with the news!!

[lanlady]

115. Hes a one-trick pony

I wanted to like him but he just won’t expand beyond a handful of platitudes. He doesn’t have the breadth of ideas or vision to be a good president

[Paladin]

117. Good. (nt)

[Renew Deal]

121. I dont think he would run anyway

He has to know that he was a tool of division.

[Ken Burch]

122. He wasn't helped by Russia the first time, and his support was and is real.

He didn't cause T___p and we all know it.

I agree he shouldn't run again, but what is the point of trying to discredit his LAST candidacy?

What is gained by trying to retroactively delegitimize the guy?

How is that NOT "refighting the primaries?

[Codeine]

131. People were just indicted for helping him.

Of course he was helped, with the aim of injuring Clinton. It worked.

Spare us your tiresome lecturing; your schtick is old and we’re all weary.

[Ken Burch]

135. If anything like that happened, he'd have had no way of knowing it.

Bernie wasn't in the race to help Russia or Trump.

And at 43% of the primary vote, his support was and is real.

We can't win or be a progressive party if we go back to what we were about before he entered the race.

Why would anyone want to?

Without those ideas, we're at nothing again.

[emulatorloo]

172. Bernie knew Russians were dividing Democrats w anti HRC agit-prop and has said so

He knew. Does not mean he had anything to do with it. But he is a smart guy and he knew what was going on

BERNIE SANDERS SAYS 'IT'S NO GREAT SECRET' RUSSIA WAS TRYING TO DIVIDE DEMOCRATS AGAINST HILLARY

http://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-emails-russian-hackers-kremlin-democratic-639292

Snip

"Did you know then that this might have been part of [the Kremlin’s] design?" MSNBC reporter Ari Melber asked Sanders Wednesday. "To leak these emails precisely so that there would be more riffs in the Democratic Party?"

"Well of course we knew that," Sanders replied.

More at link including video

[George II]

143. "The first time"? How many "times" were there?

[Ken Burch]

150. The last campaign was the first time.

I used the term to distinguish that from the upcoming nominating process.

[PatrickforO]

134. Funny, because Bernie's platform would do a hell of a lot to make

the lives of Americans measurably better. That's why I supported him. I want healthcare and expanded Social Security. I want postsecondary training to be subsidized like K-12.

Besides, with Mueller's move today, I'm thinking that some strong protections will be in place.

Consider this: What if most Americans actually read each candidate's position on the issues, research and think through what those positions will look like on the ground, then made their decision on which candidate to support based on this research instead of relying on what other people might be saying on Facebook? We'd have our Republic back just like that.

See, most of the Russian stuff was bots on social media saying stuff to sway the arguments. Interesting that some are saying Russia tried to help Bernie, because I can remember weeping at the (over and over and over and over and over) false memes that Bernie is racist, that social justice is more important than economic justice. I cannot help but wonder how it would have turned out had these lies not become memes and stolen away people who would surely have benefited....well, enough said.

But I'm just not buying the Russia supporting anyone but Trump theory. Disruption? Yes, you bet. Saying controversial things? Sure. Lying? Absolutely. But to my mind that was the goal all along - to cause us JUST LIKE IN THIS POST to mistrust anything anyone tells us, or any candidate because...what if?

Gods what a HUGE victory for Putin if people buy into what you're saying - no offense meant, but this is the absolute wrong direction to go.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

139. Lol. He ain't walkin' in the woods. Sorry to Burt your bubble

[bluedigger]

149. The Russians love this kind of thinking.

Romney can start picking out new drapes for the Oval Office already.

[ellie]

153. Let's hope

[aikoaiko]

169. It's only fodder for Bernie haters who still blame him for HRCs loss.

Carry on.

[Demsrule86]

212. I actually agree with you...and that is why I think he will not win a primary...too many blame

him for 16.

[George II]

174. Don't forget, only two Senators voted against the Russia sanctions (98-2)

[Jim Lane]

197. Or, to restate it, only two Senators voted against the Iran sanctions.

More precisely, the Iran sanctions that endangered Obama's nuclear deal with Iran, just so Trump could tell himself how much better than Obama he was.

Bernie supported the Russia sanctions but had to vote Yea or Nay on the whole package. See his full statement in post #110 upthread.

[George II]

199. I read his statement at the time of the vote, and to be honest I'm really not interested in...

...in that statement. I'm interested in his actions and votes. The sanctions were voted on and passed 522-5 between the two Houses combined. Less than 1% of the men and women who represent us in Washington voted against those sanctions.

Using Iran sanctions as an excuse is exactly that.

[Jim Lane]

201. "Using Iran sanctions as an excuse" -- what complete bullshit

It is an undeniable fact that the bill you're discussing included Iran sanctions. Bernie faced a typical problem for a legislator: There's a bill that has parts I support and parts I oppose. He weighed the pros and cons and decided to vote Nay. Disagree with his choice if you will, but, unless you have some independent evidence for saying that his statement was pretextual, you have no basis (other than preconceived animosity) for dismissing his reasoning as a mere excuse.

The bill passed 522-5? That's nice. In 1964, the Gulf of Tonkin resolution passed by a combined vote of 504-2. In 2001, the USA PATRIOT Act encountered more opposition in the House (357-66) but only one dissent in the Senate (98-1, and thank you, Russ Feingold).

All these votes have two things in common. First, when the President goes on the warpath about an alleged foreign threat, and makes the eagle scream, "the men and women who represent us in Washington" can frequently be stampeded into going along with whatever he wants. Second, an overwhelmingly favorable vote in Congress doesn't prove that a bill is a good idea.

[George II]

203. I know it does, and it includes sanctions against North Korea as well. So we shouldn't sanction...

...Russia for interfering with our election? Really?

Those who voted for it weren't "stampeded" into their votes. They used unbiased common sense and a concern for the good of the country.

Believe me, trump did NOT "go on a warpath" to get the Russia sanctions passed. Indeed, it's been more than six months since they passed and he still hasn't implemented them. He was not in favor of these sanctions. On top of that, to debunk the Iran deal excuse, trump had already said that he wanted to back out of the deal, so voting against Russia and North Korea sanctions to "save" a deal that trump may very well cancel anyway makes no sense to me.

Reminds me of the "statements" after five votes against the Brady Bill and others.

[Jim Lane]

206. Yet you still want it to be just about Russia.

You want to impute to Bernie the position that we shouldn't sanction Russia, a position he expressly disavowed. You refuse to recognize the legislators' dilemma that I explained. If there had been a bill to sanction Russia and abolish the progressive income tax, a Nay vote would not mean that the legislator was against sanctioning Russia.

As for Trump, you're correct that he didn't want Russia sanctions. I never said he did. I was addressing the Iran sanctions, arising "just so Trump could tell himself how much better than Obama he was." Within a month of his inauguration, he imposed such sanctions:

The Trump administration has announced sanctions on companies and individuals suspected of involvement in Iran’s missile programme and its support for foreign armed groups, warning there will be more pressure on Tehran to come.

Earlier on Friday Donald Trump had accused Iran of “playing with fire”.

“They don’t appreciate how ‘kind’ President Obama was to them. Not me!” he said in an early morning tweet.

I do agree, however, that my summary of the political atmosphere should have been more comprehensive about the fear-mongering. In 1964 and 2001, the President was leading the charge. In 2017, Trump was indeed on the warpath about Iran, but there was greater involvement from other actors, especially of course as to Russia. The general principle, however, is that an overwhelming Congressional vote doesn't prove the merit of the bill. Especially when the denunciation of a foreign enemy gets ginned up, whether by the President or anyone else, Congress can, alas, be stampeded. The Gruenings, Feingolds, and Sanderses often find themselves in a tiny minority.

[tymorial]

177. Oh ffs

Just trash these posts already. They only cause fighting.

[D23MIURG23]

178. I don't know if I agree with this, but he's too fucking old anyway. n/t

[ehrnst]

180. So many here said that Hillary lacked public trust, no matter if the smears were fake

and that alone ruled her out as a viable candidate.

I'm curious if this same litmus test will be applied here.

[Cha]

185. He hasn't aknowledged it but Ari Melber's calling him out..

Link to tweet

[StevieM]

189. I don't care for Bernie but I also don't think it is fair to blame him for this.

He didn't engage in the loathsome behavior that Donald Trump appears to have committed.

[DesertRat]

191. I still want to know why Sanders was one of two senators to vote against the Russia sanctions

Can anyone tell me why?

[Jim Lane]

196. I'll let Bernie himself tell you why

See post #110 in this very thread for the full text of Bernie's statement explaining his vote against the Russia and Iran sanctions.

They were bundled in one bill, and it was the Iran part that he thought was harmful.

People are free to disagree with his vote, but it would be more accurate if his detractors would stop referring to the bill as just "the Russia sanctions," which misleadingly omits the part that Bernie considered important.

[AlexSFCA]

210. that part was nowehere near as important as russia sanctions

iran is not threatening our democracy. That vote has demonstarted an incredibly poor judgement from sanders.

[grossproffit]

193. We had quite a few posters that sowed the seeds of discord. RT & Sputnik were their go to sources.

Most of them can be found on JPR now.

[left-of-center2012]

202. Some folks always looking for a reason to hate Bernie

Just sayin'

[YOHABLO]

207. I think it boils down to ones own critical thinking skills and your political issue astuteness.

I think our focus should be on the midterms this November. Let's remember that our adversary is the Right Wing, they will go to any length to stay in power.Our electoral system is a total sham and we know it. We need to work on having fair elections.

[LWolf]

233. If he runs, he'll have my vote.

I think he's doing great where he's at, as the country's most popular politician.

I would like to see some truly progressive, non-establishment millennial Democrats run.