Killing Today's Meme, Chapter the Infinity: "Sanders = Nader"

[WilliamPitt]

Killing Today's Meme, Chapter The Infinity

Today's Edition: "Bernie Sanders = Ralph Nader, Because He's Not A Democrat"

*ahem*

If Bernie runs for president, he will do so as a Democrat.

HEY LOOK, THERE'S YOUR FOOT

Try not to shoot it in favor of another f*cking Wall Street "Democrat." Bernie Sanders is a better Democrat than any of the neo-con blood-blisters being peddled to us by corporate media, and by more than a few chickensh*t "Democrats" who spend their days covered in dust-bunnies hiding under the bed BECAUSE O MY GOD REPUBLICANS YOU GUYS.

He'll run as a Democrat if he runs, and when that happens, find a mirror and decide who you are and what you stand for.

Yeah, I said it. Fish or cut bait.

[still_one]

1. so Bernie has personally confided in you, good to know

[WilliamPitt]

4. In a manner of speaking, yes.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2014/09/14/bernie_sanders_may_run_for_president_as_democrat.html

If he runs, he'll run as a Dem.

Bet me I'm wrong.

[still_one]

6. our usual bet, one dollar, right?

You might be right and we will know in the fullness of time

If he runs as a Democrat he will sure keep the debates honest

[grahamhgreen]

53. Me too.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

2. I couldn't have said it better myself, my dear Will.

I've already decided what I stand for, and corporate Dems don't do it for me.

[noiretextatique]

10. +1000

they are only slightly better than the alternative. it is time that we, the people, stop the lowering of our expectations of what government SHOULD do. and it is not financing endless wars for the enrichment of a few corporations, that is for sure.

[Comrade Grumpy]

3. Dude, it's the anagram: SANDERS = NADERSS

[wyldwolf]

5. It's a safe bet but not a forgone conclusion

I can see three scenarios IF he runs.

1. He runs as a Democrat
2. He runs as an Independent
3. He runs as a Democrat then as an independent.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

14. As much as I want Bernie to be President

I wouldn't want scenario 3. I think the 'sore loser' laws should apply to all national and state level races. If you run in a primary and lose, you shouldn't be able to pull a Lieberman and run again as an Indy for the same seat.

[wyldwolf]

19. I agree

But as long as we're speaking hypothetically, there is a 4th scenario - Runs as Democrat, pulls out before the nomination is locked in, then runs as Independent.

But Sanders strikes me as genuine in his love of country and I highly doubt he'd do anything to help Republicans win. If he runs and loses a Dem nomination, he'll throw his support behind the winner just as everyone will do if Sanders wins.

[1StrongBlackMan]

27. And based on those 3 scenarios, my predictions are ...

1. He runs as a Democrat

He will pull about 20-25% of the Democratic Primary Vote (up from the single digit numbers he is currently polling).

2. He runs as an Independent

He will pull about 7-10% of the National vote ... enough to make it tough on the Democratic nominee.

3. He runs as a Democrat then as an independent.

He will pull about 20-25% of the Democratic Primary Vote and then 3-6% of the National vote.

That said, if he should survive the Democratic Primary ... I will gladly donate time and treasure for his campaign, and get as many folks out to vote for him as I can.

[leftstreet]

7. LOL apparently he threatens the Blue Team / Red Team mentality

There is no Rx for that

[Uncle Joe]

8. I'm convinced that because of Nader, should Bernie run, he will run as a Democrat.

Sanders doesn't have Nader's ego and Bernie is also blessed with pragmatism to complement his idealism.

Thanks for the thread, WilliamPitt.

[winter is coming]

9. If the Democratic Party is that worried about a third-party candidate, they

could figure out why they're losing voters to Bernie and then emulate that strategy.

Or they could go on telling leftists that their impractical fringey desires are irrelevant while at the same time demanding them to line up to support Approved Candidate.

You don't get something for nothing, folks. If our votes matter, then act like it. If not, then STFU.

[arcane1]

11. Exactly!

[tazkcmo]

13. No you di-in't!

There is no use in trying. Defeatism is the proper philosophy so the sooner you accept the inevitability of The Anointed One and stop with this Bernie foolishness the happier Hill- er- YOU will be. Now get back in line prole!

Btw, next meme: But a fierce primary will damage the party. Is that what you want?

[winter is coming]

18. Yes, we were horribly damaged by 2008, a year where states whose primaries

rarely matter actually had a say in the process.

If our Party and our candidates are so fragile that they can't withstand a vigorous primary season, we're doing something wrong.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

17. Think of the exploding heads if it does end up a three way race

and Bernie pulls more votes than HRC. That would make her the '2016 Nader' who 'should have dropped out to avoid handing the election to the Republican'.

[QC]

25. You win! n/t

[stevenleser]

28. Nope, that doesnt work either. Nader pulled less than 5%.

That's not enough to go after, for fear of losing more voters by being more extreme, but its enough to hurt.

[winter is coming]

29. You can't have it both ways.

If you choose not to pursue, or even actively alienate, a segment of the party and later discover you really needed it, blaming the people you dismissed as "not worth it" is absurd.

[stevenleser]

30. Actually, yes, it can be both hurtful but not enough to pursue. Nothing contradictory in that. nt

[winter is coming]

32. The contradiction is making a strategic choice to ignore or alienate

part of the electorate, and then blame them for not voting for you.

[morningfog]

35. That is contradictory. If hurtful means anything,

It must mean a loss of votes. If enough votes are lost so that the election is lost if the votes han't been retained, then it was worth going after them.

[Jackpine Radical]

36. The contrarian argument is that you'll lose more on the right

than you will gain on the left if you "pander" to the left.

This contrarian argument is, to put it in the vernacular, Bullshit! It's based on the myth that America is a "center-right" country, and the alleged "center" is to the right of the Democratic Party.

Many Americans have been trained to define themselves as conservatives, Reagan Democrats, etc., & their poll responses about party or ideological affiliation cast them as fairly far to the right.

However, when the polling gets down to issues, this is not the case. The majority of the population is pro-pot legalization, pro-gun control, pro-single payer, pro-choice (including a majority of Catholic women), pro-environmental, etc. They are not necessarily going to vote the way the Blue Dogs and DINOs expect them to. You could well imagine activating a 10% voting surge on the left in response to a Bernie, accompanied by a 5% defection on the part of a few DINOs who can't handle the fact that Bernie is a *gasp* socialist!

[Enthusiast]

44. +1 You nailed it.

[A Simple Game]

34. You think moving to the left is being extreme? Nice to know, but no surprise. n/t

[Enthusiast]

45. Exactly.

No surprise to me.

[hunter]

12. I've always seen Nader as the guy who protected giant corporations from their own excesses.

I'd classify him as conservative, not progressive.

Sadly the f*cking Wall Street "Democrats" are much the same.

The two party system and it's easy manipulation by big money create some terrible political distortions in this republic. Wild strains of idealism are taken into the laboratory and genetically manipulated to be sold as a commodity.

[Recursion]

15. If he runs in the Democratic primary he'll top out at 5% outside of New England

This is what I don't like about echo chambers... back in '04 and '08 we had people here actually taking Kucinich's Presidential campaign seriously. Support for him on DU polls was up in the 30s, whereas it was 1/10th that in actual primaries.

It's certainly fine for him to seek the Democratic nomination, of course; the more the merrier. The problem is he can't simply run in the general "as a Democrat" unless the voters of the party want him to.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

21. People who spend most of their time on political sites

tend to be more towards the 'ends' of the political spectrum than towards the center, because they're paying more attention to how politics actually affects every day life, and believe the proper 'solutions' are those offered from their chosen political ideology. People who don't see how much politics affect them tend to not care as much who gets elected, or not see the connection between who gets elected and what happens. So they tend to have more of your nonvoters, your maybe voters, your waffly switch voters. So they're going to lean more towards candidates they see as breaking more radically with 'the way Washington is'. President Obama was politically astute, and made it one of his central selling points that he could and would 'change how things are done in Washington'. So he not only got new voters, but scooped in the liberal vote easily.

Candidates who present as 'insiders' and triangulators will have a tougher time grabbing the liberals and a tougher time inspiring new voters. So they have to know exactly who they can get to the polls. While a centrist can win, they're much more likely to do so with a smaller electorate than a candidate who actually will promise change.

[Enthusiast]

46. Why do you fear him so much if he'll top out at 5%?

You fear him! That much is crystal clear.

[Recursion]

47. My fear is that he'll push the more "mainstream" candidates to the right

Just like we saw with Gore and Bradley: Gore knew he couldn't compete with Bradley on his left flank, so he moved closer to the center to make up those votes.

[Enthusiast]

48. That is an unfounded fear.

[Sopkoviak]

16. Sanders is 73 years old

He was 1st elected to an office in 1971.

45 years ago.

He has never run as or declared himself to be a Democrat.

I'm just curious as to why you think he would change now?

Any special insight?

[Martin Eden]

20. 79 at the end of his first term

That could work against him, justified or not.

Why would he change now?
I think he would if that's his best chance to win. He's already floated the idea.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

22. Because he said he might on a TV program or two. nt

[cascadiance]

23. Because he knows that the system is rigged for the two major parties...

... that doesn't allow for third parties to win in most major races and they are only known as spoilers.

I would bet that many Tea Party Republicans had been in fringe extreme right wing third parties too, before they realized they needed to take over the Republican Party to get elected as well.

If Bernie does get nominated and subsequently elected as a just signed on Democrat, then perhaps he can help successfully get Democrats to put in place instant runoff voting laws, so that he could run as a third party instead of "taking over" a Democratic Party position of power. That would be a big win in and of itself aside from the power he would have in putting in place a progressive administration that would NOT appoint a chief of staff that would call anyone that is even center left "f-ing retarded!".

[tazkcmo]

24. The only special

Insight I have are Sen. Sander's words. If you haven't seen the MTP segment he was in you too can watch it and gain that "special insight".

[grahamhgreen]

54. It's cheaper. He's a pragmatist. We want him.

[seabeyond]

26. that is what i thought. i didnt know where you were going. no, sanders would not be a nader.

thanks.

[hack89]

31. After 43 years as an Independent, for political expediency he becomes a Democrat

And you ask us to examine what we stand for? Perhaps you should ask Bernie the same question.

[tclambert]

33. He's 73. I'll vote for him if he selects a really good running mate.

Maybe one whose name starts with E and ends with lizabeth Warren.

[grahamhgreen]

56. I'd vote for him if he was 103. Makes for sense that people half his age.

[MisterP]

37. but Sanders does = Nader!

in that neither threw the 2000 election (and the Loyalists have always known, since 2001)
it's as dusty a delaying tactic as "we're just waiting to keep our powder dry"

[edbermac]

38. AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

On Tue Sep 16, 2014, 09:00 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Killing Today's Meme, Chapter the Infinity: "Sanders = Nader"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025545821

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

My way or the highway? Either like my candidate or kiss my ass? I am sick of this clown's belligerent posts--they aren't passionate, they are rude and nasty and sound like they are coming from a place where the writer isn't thinking straight--this kind of shit is straight out of "used car salesman" territory and he needs to just cut the crap. This blowhard posts intemperately and rudely, and his opinion is just that--an opinion. He's doing a great job of making Clinton Democrats--and we ARE Democrats and we don't deserve to be treated like fish bait--feel VERY UNWELCOME here. This guy is touting a candidate who is NOT (yet) running as a Democrat, and teling those of us planning on voting for a Democrat that we're assholes if we don't agree with him? --Instead of telling people to kiss his ass, or calling people who don't agree with his rude and blowhardy opinions "chickenshits, " he needs to learn to speak civilly and stop with the Kiss My Ass hyperbole. It's a big tent, Will--we're ADULTS here--enough with the childish and bullying tone. It makes you sound UNHINGED.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Sep 16, 2014, 09:12 PM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Even though I don't enjoy WillPitt's posts, he doesn't cross the line here. He's not calling anyone an asshole, and he's not referring to any DUers as chickenshits.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Nothing wrong with the post at all.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: uh-buoy
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Pitt's OP is fine. He's saying that a potential presidential candidate, who will run as a Democrat, should be given due consideration. What's the problem: some mildly abrasive language? Has the alerter only just arrived on the internet? It would take a lot more to be considered rude or over the top.

Also worth noting, Pitt's OP does not mention Clinton or Clinton Democrats by name. He challenges us to 'fish or cut bait' but does not actually accuse anyone of BEING chum, squid, or other fetid lures...
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: William Pitt is indeed a bit of a ridiculous self-important blowhard, but I don't think this needs to be hidden. Given that his prognostications frequently prove to be embarrassingly wrong, better to leave them up for posterity.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: What a pathetic alert.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[WilliamPitt]

39. Heh.

[JEB]

41. I guess somebody doesn't want to cut bait. 0-7 hahahahaha

[Ken Burch]

50. There was more that could have been alerted on IN that alert than in the post the alert alerted on.

Would anyone like me to go through all that again?

[Skittles]

51. HAHAHAHAHAHA

[Douglas Carpenter]

52. now what kind of goof ball alerted on this?

[grahamhgreen]

55. The paid personas are out if control!!! Skinner, they'll destroy DU.

[nashville_brook]

61. [phone]

[JEB]

40. I'll vote for Bernie even if he doesn't run .

[Rex]

42. Only the dullest dullard still falls for that line imo.

Also, there are trillions on the line to always maintain the status quo.

[Jim Lane]

43. My Bernie problem: Sanders v. O'Malley

Give me either Sanders v. Clinton or O'Malley v. Clinton, and I have no problem deciding what I stand for.

But -- what if both of them run? From what I know about O'Malley, I like him. I know more about Sanders, and I like him more, but he probably has less chance of winning the nomination and, if nominated, less chance of winning the election.

I ask this because both Sanders and O'Malley have given indications of running. Other people mentioned as possible candidates from "our" side of the party, such as Sherrod Brown and Elizabeth Warren, haven't yet done so.

Still, better that we have two such candidates than that we have none. My nightmare scenario would be that the conservaDem candidate backed by the party establishment (probably Clinton but possibly Cuomo) coasts to the nomination with no significant challenge from the left.

[Recursion]

49. Any thoughts on Schweitzer? He's still my favorite to the extent I have one

But I do like O'Malley, too.

[Jim Lane]

57. Schweitzer pros and cons

Schweitzer is a Westerner -- and not just in the sense that he's been elected in a state in that area, as Gary Hart and Bill Richardson were. Rather, his style and substance are more classic Western (or at least the classic stereotype) than what the Democratic Party is used to seeing.

There's some advantage to that. He can tap into some of that disgust with Washington that Sanders has identified. He can also counter the image of Democrats as effete urbanites, and might help us get more votes from men.

On the minus side, his environmental credentials are mixed. He has spoken out against climate change and in favor of conservation. Against that, another of his policy proposals is to push the conversion of coal into diesel fuel. This is not unexpected from the Governor of a state with extensive coal reserves. As an environmentalist, however, I care much less about the goal Schweitzer emphasized -- reducing our dependence on foreign oil -- and much more about reducing carbon dioxide emissions. The coal should stay in the ground.

That classic Western stereotype would also include opposition to any form of gun control. I have the impression that Schweitzer is generally pro-gun, but I'm less knowledgeable on that issue so I'll leave the elaboration to others.

Schweitzer was pretty much our only hope for being competitive in this year's Senate race in Montana. My understanding is that he took a pass because, at least in part, he didn't want to move to Washington. Presumably the White House would be enough incentive to overcome that preference.

[Recursion]

58. OTOH he is an organic farmer

his environmental credentials are mixed

That's my big concern, too. He's himself an organic farmer, but obviously like anybody coming from Big Sky country he has to be more or less friendly with Monstanto and Conagra (hey, it's the nature of the beast).

[libodem]

59. Fuck Nader

[hifiguy]

60. All I have to say is