Feel the Bern

[Alan V]

I think Sanders declaring that he's running increases the chances of Biden declaring, since Biden would make a strong moderate candidate to challenge him. And Biden would likely do better against Sanders than Clinton.

So in the end, I think Sanders running will do less to advance his stated agenda than letting the younger people take up his banner.

[bennyboy]

Sanders is by far my favorite candidate, but I'm worried he's too old now.

--edit--

Just saw a recent interview, and he's looking fresh, young-ish, and ready for the fight.  Go Bernie!

[bennyboy]

Oops I timed out without posting the video I found.

[DLJ]

Sanders is by far my favorite candidate, but I'm worried he's too old now.

--edit--

Just saw a recent interview, and he's looking fresh, young-ish, and ready for the fight.  Go Bernie!

Over here, last year, ordinary people rose up against decades of government corruption and elected a 92 year-old.

Just saying.

[Yonadav]

I think Sanders declaring that he's running increases the chances of Biden declaring, since Biden would make a strong moderate candidate to challenge him. And Biden would likely do better against Sanders than Clinton.  

So in the end, I think Sanders running will do less to advance his stated agenda than letting the younger people take up his banner.

I think that if Bernie doesn't get the nomination this time, then there is a pretty good chance that he will play the role of king maker. The nomination will go to the person that he backs.

[Anomalocaris]

Actually, I think the Clintons will remains the king makers in the Democratic Party, as Obama seems to have neither the inclination nor the ground work to replace them.   The clintons remain the only ones who have experience with and knows how governing actually works, and have contacts with the full range of supporting characters required to make both the political machine and the government work in an operational way.

The rest have little beyond ego, kambaya and vinegar.

Turning the Democrats against the Clintons is THE signal, if in the end self destructive, achievement of the GOP since 1996.

Sanders will remain the outsider trouble makers vaguely similar to what trump had been to the GOP, but with a more coherent, if just as disruptive and Unrooted, platform.

[Brian37]

Actually, I think the Clintons will remains the king makers in the Democratic Party, as Obama seems to have neither the inclination nor the ground work to replace them.   The clintons remain the only ones who have experience with and knows how governing actually works, and have contacts with the full range of supporting characters required to make both the political machine and the government work in an operational way.

The rest have little beyond ego, kambaya and vinegar.

Turning the Democrats against the Clintons is THE signal, if in the end self destructive, achievement of the GOP since 1996.

Sanders will remain the outsider trouble makers vaguely similar to what trump had been to the GOP, but with a more coherent, if just as disruptive and Unrooted, platform.

Bernie vs Hillary, Hillary vs Bernie. THAT SHIT NEEDS TO STOP!

Stop assuming whom will are will not win the nomination. Strategy matters, and staying suck on what we cannot change wont help.

And if one is going to talk of "King makers" how is it if the Clintons are "king makers" Obama beat her, won the nomination and two elections?

Your logic doesn't work. If Hillary was supposed to be the King maker when she ran against Obama by that logic, she should have won the nomination in 08, and become President instead of Obama.

The Clintons are not king makers otherwise we would be saying "Madam President" instead of , "President Fuckface Orange Galactic Clusterfuck."

[Anomalocaris]

Actually, I think the Clintons will remains the king makers in the Democratic Party, as Obama seems to have neither the inclination nor the ground work to replace them.   The clintons remain the only ones who have experience with and knows how governing actually works, and have contacts with the full range of supporting characters required to make both the political machine and the government work in an operational way.

The rest have little beyond ego, kambaya and vinegar.

Turning the Democrats against the Clintons is THE signal, if in the end self destructive, achievement of the GOP since 1996.

Sanders will remain the outsider trouble makers vaguely similar to what trump had been to the GOP, but with a more coherent, if just as disruptive and Unrooted, platform.

Bernie vs Hillary, Hillary vs Bernie. THAT SHIT NEEDS TO STOP!

Stop assuming whom will are will not win the nomination. Strategy matters, and staying suck on what we cannot change wont help.

And if one is going to talk of "King makers" how is it if the Clintons are "king makers" Obama beat her, won the nomination and two elections?

Your logic doesn't work. If Hillary was supposed to be the King maker when she ran against Obama by that logic, she should have won the nomination in 08, and become President instead of Obama.

The Clintons are not king makers otherwise we would be saying "Madam President" instead of , "President Fuckface Orange Galactic Clusterfuck."

You don’t seem to understand the concept of the king maker.   King maker is not the king. King maker often becomes the king maker precisely because he could not be the king.    But he still has sufficient influence so that by throwing his weight behind, or smoothing the path for, the contestant of his choice, he could effectively determine who would be king.

Also, king makers exist within the kingdom, not across kingdoms.   So Hillary the king maker can determine who will be the Democratic candidate.  She can not determine who will be the president.  She is the king maker, not the emperor.

[Angrboda]

I hear Sanders is polling well. But if Hillary sucked in 2016, and Sanders couldn't successfully pull the rug out from under her, why think he has better chances this time?

I think people ignore the cyclical nature of presidential politics. Maybe Hillary wasn't a great candidate, but we were due for a Republican president after 8 years under a Democrat, and even then, Trump really only managed to squeak by. Whether in 2020 or 2024 the wheel will turn the other way, and Donald Trump and this ridiculous presidency will be history. Given the quality of the Trump presidency, about the only thing holding it together is Republican solidarity, because they're all afraid of what will happen if they aren't unified. I don't think that's going to be enough to prevent a leftward swing in 2020 and elect a Democrat. The only question is which one. At this stage of the game, it's too early to tell, as a presidential campaign is a crucible unlike any other, so until we see their performance in the rearview mirror, it's hard to recommend any one candidate over another.

Being a Minnesota girl, I have high hopes for Amy Klobuchar. I've always liked Amy, even when she was still a lowly state AG. But she's got a lot of proving to do that she hasn't done with her prior service. Only time will tell.

[Brian37]

I hear Sanders is polling well.  But if Hillary sucked in 2016, and Sanders couldn't successfully pull the rug out from under her, why think he has better chances this time?

I think people ignore the cyclical nature of presidential politics.  Maybe Hillary wasn't a great candidate, but we were due for a Republican president after 8 years under a Democrat, and even then, Trump really only managed to squeak by.  Whether in 2020 or 2024 the wheel will turn the other way, and Donald Trump and this ridiculous presidency will be history.  Given the quality of the Trump presidency, about the only thing holding it together is Republican solidarity, because they're all afraid of what will happen if they aren't unified.  I don't think that's going to be enough to prevent a leftward swing in 2020 and elect a Democrat.  The only question is which one.  At this stage of the game, it's too early to tell, as a presidential campaign is a crucible unlike any other, so until we see their performance in the rearview mirror, it's hard to recommend any one candidate over another.

Being a Minnesota girl, I have high hopes for Amy Klobuchar.  I've always liked Amy, even when she was still a lowly state AG. But she's got a lot of proving to do that she hasn't done with her prior service.  Only time will tell.

Again, not the point. 

I agree with you, but not for the reasons most think.

I have been consistent in saying the individual person, the man, his ideas, are not the problem. Just like I thought Hillary as an individual was not the problem. The real problem are the supporters, not the candidates. 

Bernie and Hillary ended up supporting each other in the General, but both camps had a big enough minority IN BOTH CAMPS that were bitter about the outcome.

I see the exact same thing happening this time too if the left doesn't pull it's head out of its ass. I see Bernie fans blaming the nominee if it is not him, BUT ALSO if he gets nominated, others who didn't get their candidate in, blaming him. 

That isn't going to cut it this time.