Liberal Senator Bernie Sanders may seek presidency in 2016

[cadaverdog]

Liberal Vermont Senator Sanders may seek U.S. presidency in 2016
Reuters
By Will Dunham




WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Bernie Sanders, one of the Senate's leading liberals, said on Sunday he is thinking about running for U.S. president in 2016 as either a Democrat or an independent in a move that could complicate Hillary Clinton's path to the White House.

Sanders, an independent from Vermont, could pose a challenge from the left to Clinton, widely seen as the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination. She has not officially said she is a candidate but has acted very much like one.

"I think anybody who speaks to the needs of the working class and the middle class of this country and shows the courage to take on the billionaire class, I think that candidate will do pretty well," Sanders told the NBC program "Meet the Press," giving a possible preview of his message in the 2016 campaign.

Sanders is serving his second six-year term in the Senate. He has cultivated a following among some American liberals, especially on economic issues like the growing income disparity between rich and poor and corporate greed. He is a self-described socialist who caucuses with Democrats in the Senate.

"I am thinking about running for president," Sanders said, adding that he must decide whether to run as an independent or wade into the fight for the Democratic nomination.

Sanders is testing the waters in Iowa, a state that holds an important early contest in the nomination process.

"One of the reasons I'm going to Iowa is to get a sense of how people feel about it," he said of his candidacy. "Look, the truth is (there is) profound anger at both political parties, more and more people are becoming independent. The negative is: how do you set up a 50-state infrastructure as an independent?"

Sanders said he has "a lot of respect" for Clinton, but said, "The issue is not Hillary."

With Clinton mindful of the need to appeal to moderates in any general election battle against a Republican in 2016, a Sanders candidacy could force her to the left in the Democratic primaries to head off his challenge.

Conversely, if he runs in the general election as an independent, he could siphon away from her votes from liberals that she could need to beat any Republican nominee.

American liberals have expressed disappointment with President Barack Obama on a range of issues, most recently on his decision to postpone any executive action on immigration even as Republican leaders in the House of Representatives block action on a bipartisan Senate-passed plan.

Sanders said that he has "a lot of disagreements" with Obama, adding: "I think he has not tapped the anger and the frustration that the American people feel on many, many issues."

[cadaverdog]

I'd vote for the sumbitch. Republicans obviously don't give a fuck about picking an electable candidate and I damn sure ain't voting for Hillary. Unfortunately he might split the liberal vote with Hillary and get Romney elected like Perot did in when Slick Willie got elected and Nader did when W got elected. There would have never been a recount for Gore to lose if Nader hadn't run. The republican party actually paid for Nader ads in states they assumed Gore would win. This time they'll probably pay for Sanders ads in states the republican candidate can't win too.

[Satan]

He will have a 666% endorsement from the Demoncratic Party of Hell.

SANDERS/WARREN 2016!!!

[Kristy]

SANDERS/WARREN 2016!!!

Corporate America wins!

[Nitro Express]

Both the Democrat and Republican parties are bought and paid for. If there is a decent for the people candidate that is even popular the parties will still snub them and give the nomination to someone else. Heck, they shot Howard Dean down just playing his yell over and over in the media. Yeah the media. That's bought as well by the same schmucks who bought both political parties.

I think the only strategy the public can play is just fire all the incumbents up for re-election this election. Fire em all and replace them with the best candidate running. We need to show the congress we can fire them and then they will listen. Once you have congress house trained then you can start reforming campaign finance whittle away the corporate hold on the presidency.

[FORD]

There would have never been a recount for Gore to lose if Nader hadn't run.

Bullshit.

The number of votes that Jeb & Cruella Harris eliminated before the election were far more than the Nader votes. Hell, even the folks in Palm Beach county who "accidentally" voted for Pat Buchanan due that Repuke-designed butterfly ballot were more than the Nader votes. And it doesn't matter, because when the ballots were all TRULY counted, Gore won anyway. Unfortunately, that was after the Felonious Five BCE appointed black robed monarchs threw out the election and installed their employer's idiot son, and the final result counts weren't published until September 17.... or in other words, 6 days too late to stop all Hell from breaking loose.

[FORD]

I think the only strategy the public can play is just fire all the incumbents up for re-election this election. Fire em all and replace them with the best candidate running. We need to show the congress we can fire them and then they will listen. Once you have congress house trained then you can start reforming campaign finance whittle away the corporate hold on the presidency.

I used to think that getting rid of all the incumbents and putting definite term limits on House and Senate was a good idea, but Thom Hartmann made a good point.....

Lobbyists aren't elected, and they don't have term limits. Not to mention many of them are former elected politicians themselves. So if everybody in the Senate and the House was new, and they were looking for some advice on how things are done in DC, the only experienced people left to talk to would be the lobbyist scum who have too much influence as it is.

The only real problem with Bernie Sanders being President and Elizabeth Warren being VP is that it would take two of the few remaining decent Senators away. Vermont would probably get somebody decent to fill the seat. (Howard Dean is always possible) Massachusetts?? Who knows? They could get somebody as good as Warren or as bad as Cosmo Brown.

Get rid of lobbyists and corporate money, and then term limits might be more practical. Also then it might be more likely that folks might want to get elected to serve, and not to set themselves up for a future scumbag lobbyist gig.

[Nitro Express]

There are term limits in congress. It's called elections. There's always going to be organizations with lot's of money to buy politicians with. Heck the Federal Reserve is a private corporation that never get's audited and they are in control of the money supply. Don't tell me the Federal Reserve isn't buying politicians. What's to say they aren't just making some extra money on their computer and then transferring it to politician's accounts over the SWIFT system. Who's going to stop it? Who's going to know? The only organization that can would be the government and they own it.

The thing is politicians are power junkies. They are making millions in Washington. They could cut out early and enjoy all that money in retirement but none of them retire. They are addicted to the power and being tossed out of office is what they fear most. It's not just the money. It's the power.

[cadaverdog]

Bullshit.

And it doesn't matter, because when the ballots were all TRULY counted, Gore won anyway. Unfortunately, that was after the Felonious Five BCE appointed black robed monarchs threw out the election and installed their employer's idiot son, and the final result counts weren't published until September 17.... or in other words, 6 days too late to stop all Hell from breaking loose.

If the rolls were reversed and Gore had been elected under the same conditions you wouldn't have said a word about it. Gore's a fucking douchebag. He probably would have pissed off China and Russia claiming he invented communism and started WWIII.

[Nitro Express]

If the rolls were reversed and Gore had been elected under the same conditions you wouldn't have said a word about it. Gore's a fucking douchebag. He probably would have pissed off China and Russia claiming he invented communism and started WWIII.

Al Gore is a scumbag. Yeah I think he won the election and the Bush family used their strong arm influence to steal it but I think the result would have been the same. Everyone thought Obama would stop the Bush agenda but he continued it.

[cadaverdog]

Bullshit.

The number of votes that Jeb & Cruella Harris eliminated before the election were far more than the Nader votes.

It would still be more votes for Al Einstein.
In the 2000 presidential election in Florida, George W. Bush defeated Al Gore by 537 votes. Nader received 97,421 votes, which led to claims that he was responsible for Gore's defeat. Nader, both in his book Crashing the Party and on his website, states: "In the year 2000, exit polls reported that 25% of my voters would have voted for Bush, 38% would have voted for Gore and the rest would not have voted at all."[1] (which would net a 13%, 12,665 votes, advantage for Gore over Bush.) When asked about claims of being a spoiler, Nader typically points to the controversial Supreme Court ruling that halted a Florida recount, Gore's loss in his home state of Tennessee, and the "quarter million Democrats who voted for Bush in Florida." [2]
[1]Varadarajan, Tunku (2008-05-31). "Interview: Ralph Nader". Wall Street Journal
[2]"Dear Conservatives Upset With the Policies of the Bush Administration". Nader for President 2004.

[Nitro Express]

What America wants is a leader who is neither too conservative or liberal who actually cares about the people instead of oligarchs and corporations. We have had a long list of corporate oriented presidents who give corporations whatever they want and they even have nixed past legislation that made such corporate abuses impossible. Presidents who just want more poor people on welfare who can be persuaded to vote a certain way or the goodies get taken away. This is why they want amnesty so bad. More welfare voters.

[Seshmeister]

Both the Democrat and Republican parties are bought and paid for. If there is a decent for the people candidate that is even popular the parties will still snub them and give the nomination to someone else. Heck, they shot Howard Dean down just playing his yell over and over in the media. Yeah the media. That's bought as well by the same schmucks who bought both political parties.

The big 2 got a fright with Perot and changed the rules to make it absolutely impossible for a third candidate to even get close.

[cadaverdog]

The big 2 got a fright with Perot and changed the rules to make it absolutely impossible for a third candidate to even get close.

Are you refering to the matching funds increase in 94 and rule change that went into effect in 2012 about allowing only $250 per individual contributor to count towards the $5,000 minimum per state that a candidate must raise to qualify?