On April 28, Bernie Sanders said he will seek the Democratic Party nomination for President. Although he has run for office dozens of times in the past, it was always as a nominee of the Liberty Union Party, or as an independent candidate. He even ran for presidential elector in 1980 on the Socialist Workers Party ticket. See this story.
Bernie Sanders, currently elected as an Independent to the US Senate, seeking Democratic Presidential nomination
“I remember listening to Senator Sanders on the Thom Hartmann radio program.”
As you may be aware, Sanders has done a weekly “Brunch with Bernie” radio show with Hartmann for like 8 years now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEk097XLXG0
“I’d love to find out what his position is on Second Amendment rights. Vermont has a great deal of law-abiding firearms owners.”
For the most part Sanders supports “state’s rights” re guns and has voted no on alot of federal gun control measures. But occasionally he bucks this trend and supports various assault weapons ban or background check laws.
Various DNC apparatchiks have commented to the effect that Sanders would have to formally join the Democratic Party to participate in DNC-sanctioned debates, and in many states to even get on their ballot I assume, but that’s what everybody excepts him to do anyway. He’ll almost certainly formally join the party the same day he announces his campaign to seek the Dem nomination, and I doubt anybody will think much of it. If he tries to seek the Dem nomination while remaining an independent, that would be interesting and might raise some issues, but the safe bet is he’ll just moot the issue on day one of his campaign by declaring himself a Democrat. In other words, Sanders is more respectful of the party whose nomination he ostensibly wants, than Jesse Ventura.
There’s also Lincoln Chafee, if he drops the exploratory pretense and actually runs. If he gets any traction, I can see people raising it as an issue for him since he was a Republican in the Senate, elected Gov. as an independent, and only became a Dem towards the end of his single term as Governor. Even for him though, there will probably be other issues holding him back, namely the fact that he excites exactly nobody as a potential candidate for President. And it’s pretty easy for him to turn into a positive, showing that he’s not a partisan, etc., and he can also point to having prominently supported Obama in both 2008 and 2012 (a favor Obama repaid by not backing his Dem opponent for RI Gov in 2010)
Hopefully, Bernie Sanders will do very well against the Hillary machine. Since he started his political career in 1970 with Vermont’s Liberty Union Party, he’s obviously someone who like Ron Paul has worked his way into the system and tried to bring about a meaningful discussion. I’d love to find out what his position is on Second Amendment rights. Vermont has a great deal of law-abiding firearms owners.
I remember listening to Senator Sanders on the Thom Hartmann radio program. As far as the Democrats go, he’d be the best candidate for them if the frontrunner remains Hillary Clinton.
Andy Craig – everything you say about Bernie Sanders being a lapdog for the Democrats is correct, but it is still unusual for someone who has not in recent years been affiliated as a Democrat to run in the Democrat primaries for President. (I think he was involved in one or both of Jesse Jackson’s campaigns for President, but I don’t know if he was a Democrat then or not.)
When I first heard that Sanders might run in the Democrat primaries, I thought the Democrats might try to keep him out of debates and forums. But now I don’t thing Hilary Clinton will agree to any debates, so it might be a moot point.
Sanders will still get on MSNBC and other news and interview programs, and raise his profile, which is probably all he can hope for.
Bill Bradley was a very “serious” contender in 2000, but of course he was a corporate lapdog candidate like Al Gore.
Matt Taibbi attacks the MSM mantra of “seriousness”, which is of course the same thing as “loyal servant of monied interests”.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/give-em-hell-bernie-20150429
I’ve seen a few polls recently that had Sanders at double digits in New Hampshire. He might be able to make that semi competitive.
He won’t be a serious contender though. Probably on the level of Bill Bradly in 2000. But he’ll energize his base of voters and it will be interesting to see where they go after his campaign ends.
I’d love to see Sanders do well in the primary but I don’t see it happening unless there are >5 total primary candidates and >4 by New Hampshire.
Sanders does have decent electoral appeal in Iowa and New Hampshire but again this is a Democratic primary and he isn’t a Democrat. It all depends on whether there is a strong progressive alternative in the early primaries to siphon off Sanders’ votes. While at this time I don’t see anyone else with any kind of left-populist credentials in the race, Dem primary voters are notably fickle and easily persuaded by the MSM to support someone they’ve never heard of.
Sanders will do better than Kucinich ever did but will likely fall short of Ron Paul’s 2008 numbers. The only way he does better than Paul is if the field is down to >4 candidates by New Hampshire, enabling Sanders to get 10-15% there. But I hope I’m wrong and Sanders exceeds expectations.
Sander’s relationship with the Democratic party isn’t that ambiguous. He has always caucused as a Democrat in Congress. He’s always backed the Democratic nominee for President. In most of his House and Senate elections he hasn’t faced a Democratic opponent. When he did, it was only a token opponent who got less than 10% of the vote while the party effectively backed Sanders. Just about the only thing about him that hasn’t been Democratic, has been his ballot label and formal membership, but he’s been rightfully regarded as a de-facto-Dem for all intents and purposes for as long as he’s been in Washington.
I don’t think his history of running and winning as an independent in VT, is going to hurt him in the Dem primary. Being an unabashed far-left unreconstructed old-school socialist who could never win a general election, yes (and that same fact will also be the core of his support). But I don’t see anybody really making an issue out of his partisan loyalty, particularly since he’s made clear he won’t run third-party/ind. in the general election. He’ll just be regarded as the far-left Dem in the race, at least on economic issues.
The money disadvantage stems from the fact that Ds and Rs support a corporate agenda and have access to unlimited corporate SuperPac money. Just like the commentary here and on right wing sites, the commentary on Democratic websites is primarily concerned with how much money Sanders (can’t) raise and why he can’t win because of that. This shows the pathetic deference and capitulation to money power on all sides of the political spectrum.
Some people seem to think a constitutional amendment (Move to Amend) would solve the problem but sadly we are way past that point now. Corporates control state legislatures too. Regulatory and legislative capture is complete and both parties are wholly owned subsidiaries of Goldman Sachs and Koch Industries.
My hope is that Sanders campaign will highlight the corporate and anti-popular nature of the Democratic Party in the same way the Paul campaign highlighted the same issues in the Republican party. Unfortunately, TPTB are also expected the Sanders campaign to draw the disenchanted back into the Dem machine in the same way the Paul campaign drew people into the Rep machine.
“Even if Clinton manages to screw herself out of the nomination, the DP has plenty of backups they will nominate before they seriously consider someone with Sanders’ views.” Clearly true, and the Democratic Party has plenty of loyal Democrats to nominate before they nominate someone who has had an ambiguous relationship with the Party.
Sen. Sanders cannot possibly raise enough money or support from Democrat officeholders or party activists to mount a real challenge. His goal is clearly to get free publicity through television and radio talk shows. He will have access to this kind of publicity until after the New Hampshire primary, when he will either drop out or be relegated to the independent Left media.
A brief run in the early Democrat primaries will get Sanders a lot of coverage in the political media, and it is less work than a third party campaign going all the way to November.
It is a weak individual who dose what is expected of her rather then what she decides she ought to be doing. I believe she wants to run.
Sanders isn’t in a great position to run on foreign policy. He’s obviously trying to attack from the left, but support for Israel is slipping in the Democratic Party, particularly on the left, and he has a record of supporting aid and support for Israel. Giving a leftist foreign policy would be called out, while running on a pro-Israel policy would hurt his appeal to Hillary’s left.
Hillary really looks unhealthy and unhappy to me. Maybe she doesn’t really want to run, but kind of feels it’s expected of her. Another viable candidate can possibly give her an out.
I can hope, anyway.
I think it’s good he’s running. It indicates that Hillary is alot weaker than the media portrays her, and that there is a movement amongst the Dems for a fresh(ish) point of view.
Interesting. An agenda with no foreign policy position. I guess it must not be very important.
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/agenda/
Even if Clinton manages to screw herself out of the nomination, the DP has plenty of backups they will nominate before they seriously consider someone with Sanders’ views.
I wonder if he jumped in because of the email and foundation scandals – i.e. figuring on a weakened front runner?
We try to post mostly about current independent and alt party candidates/politicians, but he is still an elected independent Senator, and his past alt party connections should still merit an occasional article. I wouldn’t post about him very often though, as it could quickly overwhelm the site if his campaign gains any traction.
Honestly, I’m surprised that he is running at all. I expected him to sit it out. Since he is running, though, it’s not surprising that it is as a Democrat.
NF – it is true that National Socialists have run in Republican primaries and sometimes even won nominations. While I see similarities between the policies of several Republican administrations (Nixon & Bush in particular) and the policies undertaken by Fascist Italy, it is also true that when open Nazis have run as Republicans, they have been repudiated by Republican leaders.
It is also true that Bernie Sanders has received more support from Vermont Democrats than has been the case with open Communists running as Democrat candidates. But a few Democrats have supported open Communists running for office – Rep. Ron Dellums endorsed a Communist candidate for Berkeley City Council in the 1980s, and a couple years ago, Rep. Dennis Kucinich backed a Communist running as a Democrat for Cleveland City Council. So bad as the Republicans are in so many ways, they have a marginally better record repudiating extremists than the Democrats have.
” Libertarians have long understood that socialists are all too welcome in the Democratic Party, and Bernie Sanders appears to agree.” – Gene Berkman
I believe they are welcome in the Republican Party as well as long as they are national socialists!
I guess this is the last post @ IPR about former Independent Bernie Sanders, now seeking the Democrat nomination for President. Libertarians have long understood that socialists are all too welcome in the Democratic Party, and Bernie Sanders appears to agree.
Good luck to him. There’s some good stuff in the platform.
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/agenda/
My hope is that a large number of Democrats will leave the party after he loses, finally convinced the Democratic Party cannot deliver the change (or hope) they want.
Run, Bernie, Run!