Feb 19 2019
07:54 am

Bernie Sanders says he will run for president again in 2020 as a Democrat. He is not a Democrat. State Democratic parties should not allow him on any primary ballots.

His only accomplishment is helping Trump get elected. Time for him to ride off into the sunset.

LeftWingCracker's picture

If you want to re elect Trump, kicking Sanders off the ballot is

The best way I know. And I would rather he not run this time, actually. I am leaning to Warren and not getting involved because I think it’s too early.

There is a reason Sanders did so well last time; he hit a nerve for so many of us that the Party has cozied too far closely to hedge funders who want to move us further away from our roots. Warren can do that, but telling to Sanders to stay out will enrage his supporters, 85% of whom are like me and voted for Hillary.

Let’s just slow our roll a bit and let nature take its course, and he will be done by May.

cafkia's picture

I am in total agreement. I

I am in total agreement. I worked on the local Sanders campaign. I find it hugely frustrating that most establishment Dems refuse to accept that Sanders had support that was never going to be Dem without him. I spoke with volunteers and contributors that were republican, libertarian, independents and most importantly, lifelong non-participants in the political process.

Those folks were, with the exception of some percentage of the indys, never going to vote for HRC. No amount of me and others telling people that seemed to make a dent. There were a lot of Sanders supporters that were only there for Sanders. There might well be a repeat of that this time. And yes, if it appears in any meaningful way that Sanders does not get a fair shake from the DNC (elements of which actually recruited Sanders to run as a Dem) we could be looking at Trump 2.0 (even if it is Pence or some other evil idiot).

Tell the Sanders you don't care about them again and don't act surprised when that does not lure them to the Democratic Party in droves.

Alex_Falk's picture


why dont yall cry some more?

fischbobber's picture


I wonder if anyone besides Bernie will champion pension reform, this time?

It's awful early and there's a lot of candidates. I think President Pelosi will be happy to turn things over to a variety of people.

bizgrrl's picture

If elected, he would have a

If elected, he would have a first in that he would be the oldest person ever elected to the U.S. presidency.

Rachel's picture

Bernie can't win - and he

Bernie can't win - and he won't be nominated. The only thing left to see is if he will throw whole-hearted or tepid support behind the actual nominee.

Mike Daugherty's picture

At 77 years old, and a couple

At 77 years old, and a couple of weeks shy of his 78 birthday when he left office, Ronald Reagan was the oldest President in U.S. history. He never should have been elected President, not because of his age, but because he was not qualified to be the most powerful person in the world. Bernie Sanders should not be disqualified because of his age. Nancy Pelosi as 78 and works circles around many half her age. Her qualifications and work ethic puts Trump to shame. Bernie does a great job representing Vermont in the U.S. Senate. I agree with him on many issues, however there are many other candidates and potential candidates that have better judgement on policy, especially foreign policy. He is not a Democrat and unless he decides to become a Democrat he should not be able to have his name listed on the ballot as such. I would love to see a woman President. There are several women that I could support and that I think would be good Presidents. However, at this time Joe Biden is the most qualified person for the job. A candidate's health should be a consideration in deciding who is best to serve as President. Of course, that is why choosing the Vice President should be very important. That person should be qualified to take over the responsibilities of the President at any time. What I would like to see is Biden do something different such as naming a qualified woman running mate early in the primary season and possibly declaring that he will serve one term only. By doing that he might gain support of some that are concerned about his age. Also, it would put a female VP in position to be the favorite to become the 47th President. Bernie needs to stay in the Senate and continue doing good.

bizgrrl's picture

Well said, Nancy Pelosi is

Well said, Nancy Pelosi is doing the job of many. She has a history of getting things done. Bernie Sanders does not have that history. Age or not, some people got it some don't.

Mike Daugherty's picture

Gosh, you are sooo smart!

Gosh, you are sooo smart!

bizgrrl's picture



Mike Daugherty's picture

I appreciated the comment. No

I appreciated the comment. No offense intended. I was just teasing and being me You always seem to have a thoughtful response, even when I disagree. Women make up over 51% of our population. It is high time their voices are heard in deciding government policies. So....keep on talking up our female legislators and future Presidents.

Somebody's picture


You might like to see that, but candidates don't name running mates in the primary. It would be presumptuous and would subvert the process. No primary ballot carries a VP line. It would be a made-up candidacy.

Also, as a political strategy, it would be foolish for Biden (or anyone) to run in the primary by volunteering that he's so old he couldn't be expected to serve out one or even two terms, so here's the built-in "plan B" for when he inevitably kicks the bucket. Also, no candidate should volunteer that they'll only serve one term, making themselves a guaranteed lame duck starting on their first day in office. Besides, what person would humiliate themselves by running in a primary as the "plan B" person whose name would not appear on any ballot?

That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works.

Mike Daugherty's picture

That's not how this works?

That's not how this works? There have been a great deal of changes in Presidential campaigns over the years. The system of primaries evolved over time. As late as 1968, Democratic nominee Hubert Humphrey did not even enter a single primary. Selecting a running mate before the first primary would actually make a lot of sense. Why would letting the roughly 60 million Democratic Party voters know who they are actually selecting as their Presidential and VP nominees be a bad idea? Nine VP'S have become President because of the death or resignation of the President. VP candidates should be qualified to step in and become President in an emergency. It would be a great idea to have VP choices vetted by the voters during the primary season. Maybe we could avoid having a Dan Quayle, or Spiro Agnew, or a Sarah Palin a heartbeat from the Presidency. Things change, and it is about time that a lot of things changed no matter if that is the way it has always worked. Doing things because that has always been the way it was done is pretty dang foolish. A candidate that is realistic and up front and honest with voters would be a refreshing change. Giving voters a chance to know the VP running mate and actually vote for the complete ticket is very sensible. Giving voters a ticket to vote for and letting them know the intention of allowing a capable woman VP to carry the torch for an additional 8 years is a great idea. Given all the changes in politics over the years and thinking we cannot do something different and refreshing to shake up the election process simply because that is not the way it works, is ignorant!

Somebody's picture

For starters, as I mentioned,

For starters, as I mentioned, there’s not a VP slot on the primary ballot. It’s a bit disingenuous to name a person for a slot not on the ballot. Second, doing so would ensure that none of the other primary candidates who run for nomination as president could be selected for the VP slot after someone else wins the first spot. So the idea of voters nominating a “team” where they’re assured the VP nominee is “ready” to become President gets undermined. You eliminate the chance of selecting a winner and adding a strong backup from the other candidates for the nomination. You actually increase the chances of getting a Dan Quayle or Sarah Palin, rather than making that less likely.

For instance, in 2008, Joe Biden wouldn’t have been on the ticket with Obama, because he started out as a candidate for President himself. Obama would have already had to have selected a running mate before Biden dropped out of the race for President. Sticking with that scenario, what sort of person would have tied their wagon as second-fiddle to an outside long-shot like Obama at the start of the 2008 nominating process? A first-term black Senator whose middle name is Hussein, running against Hillary Clinton? That’s not a scenario that gives the voters assurance that they get to nominate a team with heavy-hitters in both slots. That’s a scenario where the long shot Obama ends up with a running mate from Portland City Council, rather than a highly experienced Senator from Delaware.

Likewise, although Al Gore didn’t run for the Presidential nomination in 1992, he still would never have jumped onboard that early with Bill Clinton. There’d have been no Mondale for Carter, and no Johnson for Kennedy, either.

Of course things change, but making whimsical changes without giving them much thought for how those changes would actually play out isn’t exactly the antithesis of ‘ignorant,’ is it? People thoughtlessly deciding they want to “shake things up” is exactly how we got Trump, you know.

Perry Aubric's picture

Not Feeling the Bern

Totally agree. This blowhard has been attacking and denigrating the Democratic Party his whole career.

This is not original with me; it comes from Val Perry at HuffPost:

"We need to do everything we can to stand together against a corrupt con man who hides his tax returns, whines about rigged elections, benefitted from the DNC hack, panders to the gun lobby, has shadowy ties to Russia and refuses to accept the indignity of losing to a woman by millions of votes. Oh, you thought I meant Trump?"

No, not Trump. It's Bernie, the mansplaining not-a-Democrat who told us in 2016 that African-Americans were too dumb to vote "in their own best interests" when they overwhelmingly supported Hillary Clinton. Who, aided and abetted by Russian trolls, whipped up the gullible "Bernie bros" to buy into the idea that "Hillary is no different than Trump." Anybody still believe that?

He only did as well as he did (losing most big states and finishing 4 million votes behind Hillary in the primaries) because of her own baggage (enhanced by a quarter-century of relentless attacks from the GOP and its propaganda network). With lots of real Democrats running this time, we can only hope that this old fraud will be out early in the process.

And, yes, he should never have been allowed on a Democratic ballot, and shouldn't this year either.

Alex_Falk's picture

the only good thing

the only good thing about reading liberal conspiracy-theory brain diarrhea
shat out by people who process "politics" like cable TV celebrity gossip
is that it serves as continual warning to mentally prepare myself for
steady-state minority control of the government by the hyper-reactionary party

Knoxgal's picture


Perfectly stated

bizgrrl's picture

In a Hill-HarrisX poll

In a Hill-HarrisX poll released Tuesday, Joe Biden, along with Michelle Obama, tied as the top choice among Democratic voters when asked who should be the party's nominee in 2020.

Joe Biden is a year younger than Bernie Sanders. Kamala Harris came in third with Sanders a close fourth.

It's a long way to the primaries. Many things could change. Lots of people joining the fray. I like several of the contenders.

Tamara Shepherd's picture


Politico, WSJ, The Hill now reporting Sanders' first-day haul, for the full 24 hr period, was $5.9 million.

Andy Axel's picture

maybe he should run as an

maybe he should run as an independent, because he's still not a Democrat

fischbobber's picture

I found this interesting.


Yup, more Clinton voters defected for McCain than Sanders did for Clinton.

I think and hope it will be an issues based campaign. Our pension system as well as healthcare, education and poverty wages are all approaching critical mass. The object of the libertarians has always been to eliminate government. They're getting closer and closer to getting their wish.

JR01's picture

What kind of a fantasy world do you all live in?

Bernie got Trump elected? Seriously? You don’t think the fact that he ran against someone who was expecting a coronation and came off as such had anything to do with it? That being said, I do not think he should run again. He won’t last two terms. I’ll vote for him if he wins the nomination, but there are many more qualified candidates on the ballot so far. Really, I’ll vote for any democrat except for Andrew Yang or Clinton, if God forbid, she runs again. Lastly, who cares if he’s a member of the party or not? Saying you’re a member of one of the two parties in our terrible two party system is the only way to get new ideas across, and actually help our country.

Up Goose Creek's picture

Lightning in a bottle

Joe Biden said it best when interviewed about the 2008 primary. He described Obama as "lightning in a bottle".

I like Biden and think he made the best VP for a young senator, but he's had many primaries to demonstrate he doesn't have the same Charisma.

For 2020 I see Harris having the "lightning in a bottle" effect.

Tamara Shepherd's picture


Sanders reporting on FB this morning that the campaign has enlisted 1 million volunteers, in every Congressional district in the country, within one week of its launch.

Andy Axel's picture

he can claim it, it doesn't

he can claim it, it doesn't make it a true statement - have we learned nothing from Trump?

fischbobber's picture

In high school ....

In high school, we were introduced to the concept of essentially parallel. I argued for days that an absolute state of being either was or wasn't. Regardless of whether or not Bernie does or doesn't pass any given acid test of being a true Democrat, anyone that meets primary qualifications should be able to run.

And we should be begging anyone bringing 88% of their primary votes to the general to be running as a democrat. Hell, Ted Cruz supposedly voted for Hillary. Crossover from primary to general is expected.

Andy Axel's picture

"let's keep repeating our

"let's keep repeating our mistakes, we'll eventually perfect them"

fischbobber's picture


The party's at a crossroads with a rift between traditional party participants and progressives looking for a place to land. If the goal is to win elections, then we need to draw as many from both sides in, as possible. 88% retention is damn near unheard of. Obama only took 75% of Hillary's voters in the general in 2008. We don't just need candidates, we need party leadership and DWS sucked at her job. Bernie is an extremely low level priority, IMHO.

Tamara Shepherd's picture


Also, NYT reporting today that Sanders has raised $10 million in less than a week following his announcement.

Mike Daugherty's picture

Fund raising is very

Fund raising is very important and Bernie will have an advantage over most of the Democratic candidates. However, it is not the only advantage that can lead to the nomination. I remember Howard Dean raised substantially more than Kerry and other Democratic candidates going into to the 2004 primaries and caucuses. Ted Kennedy's endorsement going into Iowa, helped Kerry win there and gave Kerry the momentum and eventually the nomination. Dean never recovered from is animated yell and all the money in the world could not recover his momentum. He would have been a good President as would have Kerry.

R. Neal's picture

Bernie Sanders staff

fischbobber's picture

Make or Break

This looks like one of those moves that will succeed beyond what anyone thinks, or one that will blow up in his face. Time will tell. It's not 2016 anymore.

Alex_Falk's picture

hashtag resistance fantasies shattered

to all the libs out there still in fantasy land:
it's about time to stop posting "It's Mueller Time" memes showing your favorite orange villain in handcuffs, retire the homophobic cartoons of trump and putin kissing & finally give up on corny patriotic screeds lionizing intelligence services.
it ain't happening yall.

[Nancy Pelosi: 'I'm not for impeachment,' slams Trump as 'not worth it']

barring some unforeseen disaster, if the dems again try to dress up managerial liberalism with a fresh coating of woke hollywood id-pol pablum we'll all be enjoying four more years.

the only way forward is to present a compelling platform of popular politics + new-old-ideas.

Mike Daugherty's picture

I appreciate your efforts to

I appreciate your efforts to try to present your views and ideas. No disrespect intended, but what the heck are you talking about? It would be easier for this old man to understand you if your ideas were expressed plainly instead of in riddles.

Alex_Falk's picture

sorry, figured it was clear enough

two separate but related ideas:

1. despite all the corruption in trumpworld, much of the years of russiagate noise in liberal media has been a long-running grift that will never deliver on the fantasy: a Mueller-led reversal of 2016 or even a guaranteed victory against trump in 2020

2. i have a dim view of the chances the many clinton/obama clones in the dem field have against trump in 2020. i think the only way to fight the rise of the right in the next election cycle is to back a popular candidate running on a platform that is pejoratively called both "populist" and (in the USA) "socialist"

fischbobber's picture

You mean?

Like a Warren/Sanders ticket?

Alex_Falk's picture


some pairing of warren and sanders would be great, if either of them win the nom!

bizgrrl's picture

New York Times

New York Times reporting,

Beto O’Rourke raised more than $6 million online in the first 24 hours after announcing his presidential campaign last week, according to his campaign, outpacing his rivals for the Democratic nomination and making an emphatic statement about his grass-roots financial strength.

Alex_Falk's picture

you’d think

you’d think an “emphatic” statement about grass-roots support would include releasing the number of individual donations alongside the total amount raised. that said, i like @tarenceray ‘s take:

There's really no difference between Beto 2020 and Obama 2012. Those fundraising numbers + Iowa story shouldn't surprise anyone. Plenty of people were roped into Clinton nostalgia in 2016, it's going to be the same next year. Those people haven't gone away or changed their minds

U.S. politics is locked into the same patterns probably from here on out until the climate boils us alive. If Bernie wants to break out of that cycle he's going to have to stop with the "disappearing middle class" bullshit and go straight to the demoralized poor & working classes

People are rightfully skeptical about Beto's fundraising numbers, but even if he's lying, would it really matter? Politics isn't a GoFundMe, Bernie could have 10 million grassroots donors and still lose

The vast majority of Americans still don't vote and definitely don't contribute to political campaigns, and that's who you've gotta reach if you want to win and pass reforms that can withstand the onslaught of reactionaries. Anything else is just running out the clock.

bizgrrl's picture

Came from 128,000

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

TN Progressive

TN Politics

Knox TN Today

Local TV News

News Sentinel

State News

Local .GOV

Wire Reports

Lost Medicaid Funding

To date, the failure to expand Medicaid/TennCare has cost the State of Tennessee ? in lost federal funding. (Source)

Search and Archives