bernie sanders considers a run for president

[Sasha]

not that he has any chance of winning but having a "democratic socialist" running next to Clinton might frame the presidential debates towards more progressive topics, should at least make for some entertaining TV; http://wonkette.com/544257/please-oh-please-run-for-president-bernie-sanders#more-544257

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Oh good, I can't wait for the reformists to latch onto the campaign. It'll be like 1948 all over again.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

It's troubling when leftists use the word "progressive" to refer to nice reforms as opposed to things that are actually progressive in a Marxist sense. Reforms aren't progressive, but the struggle for how their are achieved and how that struggle is waged can be insofar that it allows for the class to achieve unity past their existence as disparate, atomized individual workers of divergent interests. Voting for Bernie Sanders or seeing him on the pedestal proposing radical reforms does nothing. Especially considering that that within the context of the United States, the only thing which has made these reforms possible is the blood bath that the U.S regularly inflicts on the world.

[Sinister Intents]

Is it okay that I don't care? :/

[ARomanCandle]

It's troubling when leftists use the word "progressive" to refer to nice reforms as opposed to things that are actually progressive in a Marxist sense. Reforms aren't progressive, but the struggle for how their are achieved and how that struggle is waged can be insofar that it allows for the class to achieve unity past their existence as disparate, atomized individual workers of divergent interests. Voting for Bernie Sanders or seeing him on the pedestal proposing radical reforms does nothing. Especially considering that that within the context of the United States, the only thing which has made these reforms possible is the blood bath that the U.S regularly inflicts on the world.

Hmm. I'm confused. Certainly labor law changes and women's suffrage were working class victories that came from class struggle. They were also reforms. How are you distinguishing the two?

[adipocere]

not that he has any chance of winning but having a "democratic socialist" running next to Clinton might frame the presidential debates towards more progressive topics, should at least make for some entertaining TV; http://wonkette.com/544257/please-oh-please-run-for-president-bernie-sanders#more-544257
Assuming he's not arrested before the debate like Jill Stein was.

[Alexios]

Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel had identical politics to Sanders and their presence in the 2008 debates did next to nothing. The people hosting the debate will simply ask questions that leave out the "radical" candidates and things will proceed as normal.

[Creative Destruction]

Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel had identical politics to Sanders and their presence in the 2008 debates did next to nothing. The people hosting the debate will simply ask questions that leave out the "radical" candidates and things will proceed as normal.

yeah, the only thing that happened is that their public personas were mocked. Kucinich with the alien sightings and Gravel with the odd music videos and support for the flat tax (and inexplicable defection to the Libertarian Party...)

i don't know how much of Bernie Sanders will be mocked as much as he's just largely ignored, but he does sort of have the crazy uncle vibe to him.

[Red Commissar]

Obvious objections aside regarding his politics, I don't want to be ageist here but Sanders is getting up there in years which'd stick out if he chose to go through with a campaign. Then again somehow Ron Paul got that cult of his going despite his age.

[#FF0000]

Bernie Sanders kind of has a following though, unlike Kucinich and Gravel. I don't see him winning, and don't see him being able to do much if he does win, but it'll be hella entertaining.

[Skyhilist]

Is he running as a democratic or an independent? His only real shot at winning anything and only chance he'll make it to any of the debates that people will see is to do the former, but it should be interesting either way considering he's more relevant than the likes of Jill Stein and Ralph Nader. I wouldn't be surprised if he won Vermont at least.

[Red Commissar]

Is he running as a democratic or an independent? His only real shot at winning anything and only chance he'll make it to any of the debates that people will see is to do the former, but it should be interesting either way considering he's more relevant than the likes of Jill Stein and Ralph Nader. I wouldn't be surprised if he won Vermont at least.

This is still up in the air but he had this to sat regarding how he'd run:

www.thenation.com/blog/178717/bernie-sanders-i-am-prepared-run-president-united-states#


If and when you do start a full-fledged campaign, and if you want to run against conventional politics, how far do you go? Do you go to the point of running as an independent? That’s a great challenge to conventional politics, but it is also one where we have seen some honorable, some capable people stumble.

That’s an excellent question, and I haven’t reached a conclusion on that yet. Clearly, there are things to be said on both sides of that important question. Number one: there is today more and more alienation from the Republican and Democratic parties than we have seen in the modern history of this country. In fact, most people now consider themselves to be “independent,” whatever that may mean. And the number of people who identify as Democrats or Republicans is at a historically low point. In that sense, running outside the two-party system can be a positive politically.

On the other hand, given the nature of the political system, given the nature of media in America, it would be much more difficult to get adequate coverage from the mainstream media running outside of the two-party system. It would certainly be very hard if not impossible to get into debates. It would require building an entire political infrastructure outside of the two-party system: to get on the ballot, to do all the things that would be required for a serious campaign.

The question that you asked is extremely important, it requires a whole lot of discussion. It’s one that I have not answered yet.

Unspoken in your answer is the fact that you have a great discomfort with the Democratic Party as it has operated in recent decades.

Yes. It goes without saying. Since I’ve been in Congress, I have been a member of the Democratic caucus as an independent. [Senate majority leader] Harry Reid, especially, has been extremely kind to me and has treated me with enormous respect. I am now chairman of the Veterans Committee. But there is no question that the Democratic Party in general remains far too dependent on big-money interests, that it is not fighting vigorously for working-class families, and that there are some members of the Democratic Party whose views are not terribly different from some of the Republicans. That’s absolutely the case. But the dilemma is that, if you run outside of the Democratic Party, then what you’re doing—and you have to think hard about this—you’re not just running a race for president, you’re really running to build an entire political movement. In doing that, you would be taking votes away from the Democratic candidate and making it easier for some right-wing Republican to get elected—the [Ralph] Nader dilemma

You’re not really saying whether you could run as a Democrat?

I want to hear what progressives have to say about that. The more radical approach would be to run as an independent, and essentially when you’re doing that you’re not just running for president of the United States, you’re running to build a new political movement in America—which presumably would lead to other candidates running outside of the Democratic Party, essentially starting a third party. That idea has been talked about in this country for decades and decades and decades, from Eugene Debs forward—without much success. And I say that as the longest serving independent in the history of the United States Congress. In Vermont, I think we have had more success than in any other state in the country in terms of progressive third-party politics. During my tenure as mayor of Burlington, I defeated Democrats and Republicans and helped start a third-party movement. Today, there is a statewide progressive party which now has three people in the state Senate, out of 30, and a number of representatives in the state Legislature. But that process has taken 30 years. So it is not easy.

If you look back to Nader’s candidacy [in 2000], the hope of Nader was not just that he might be elected president but that he would create a strong third party. Nader was a very strong candidate, very smart, very articulate. But the strong third-party did not emerge. The fact is that is very difficult to do.

You plan to travel, to spend time with activists in the Democratic Party and outside the Democratic Party. Will you look to them for direction?

Yes. The bolder, more radical approach is obviously running outside of the two-party system. Do people believe at this particular point that there is the capability of starting a third-party movement? Or is that an idea that is simply not realistic at this particular moment in history? On the other hand, do people believe that operating in framework of the Democratic Party, getting involved in primaries state-by-state, building organization capability, rallying people, that for the moment at least that this is the better approach? Those are the options that I think progressives around the country are going to have to wrestle with. And that’s certainly something that I will be listening to.

This is the original interview where he announced his interest.