Bernie Sanders 2020 campaign megathread

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

Bernie or Bust, 2020! Baby!

Please for the love of everything that is good, I hope this is not a serious movement in 2020.

Also:

Hard pass

[RI]

Good, good. Now Biden just needs to get in.

[No War, but the War on Christmas]

Realignment imminent

The next FDR !

Being the next FDR would not be great. FDR radically expanded the sizs of government. I personally believe that FDR is an overrated president (who tried to stay in office as long as he could). Bernie and FDR share similar ideas about expanding government. The difference is that people now know that this is federal overreach.

Of course, this is all moot, because he will not be thd nominee.

Are you sure about that? Most polls say that Americans are becoming increasingly accepting of government programs like single payer health care, etc.

[Crumpets]

Why does Bernie want to split the leftist vote? Does he really think he's the only candidate of sufficient purity? If he truly values the long-term strength of his cause, he'll endorse someone younger and fresher and not just hog his hardline supporters from other candidates who agree with him on practically every major issue.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Why does Bernie want to split the leftist vote? Does he really think he's the only candidate of sufficient purity? If he truly values the long-term strength of his cause, he'll endorse someone younger and fresher and not just hog his hardline supporters from other candidates who agree with him on practically every major issue.

Warren is a fair amount to his right, and not polling as well as him. Gabbard and Yang seem to be going nowhere. If the was a candidate anywhere as left and as strong as Bernie but younger, we'd be all for that candidate. But there isn't. This is nonsense that the other candidates all agree with him on practically every major issue. How many supported single payer before 2016 (or even 2017)? How many voted against all of the Trump military increases? It's insulting to claim that they are all like Bernie on the issues when a lot of them are obviously faking it.

[QAnonKelly]

thank u, next

[Zaybay]

I dont get why everyone is so opposed to his candidacy. I mean, there really is no reason for him not to join in. He has a good amount of support in the polls, even with Warren and others taking some votes, and Trump is much easier to take on than, say, Bush 2004 or Clinton 1996. I can get the distaste for his policy, but there seems to be some weird idea permeating in this thread that:

A. He cant possibly win
B. That his candidacy somehow splits the Left

Both of which simply arent true, especially if you consider the Left to be made up of Harris, Sanders, and Warren.

He has every right to run a campaign if he wants, if he loses, its on him, and if he wins, its also on him.

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

I dont get why everyone is so opposed to his candidacy. I mean, there really is no reason for him not to join in. He has a good amount of support in the polls, even with Warren and others taking some votes, and Trump is much easier to take on than, say, Bush 2004 or Clinton 1996. I can get the distaste for his policy, but there seems to be some weird idea permeating in this thread that:

A. He cant possibly win
B. That his candidacy somehow splits the Left

Both of which simply arent true, especially if you consider the Left to be made up of Harris, Sanders, and Warren.

He has every right to run a campaign if he wants, if he loses, its on him, and if he wins, its also on him.

I think the argument is he can’t win the primary. He’s getting a fraction of the support he received in 2016, and most of what he’s getting now is based on his universal name recognition. Both he and Biden are leading based primarily on name recognition

[Rookie Yinzer]

I dont get why everyone is so opposed to his candidacy.

He is old and a lot of people don't like the way he conducted himself when he was mathematically eliminated from the nomination. We don't owe him anything. I'd like to leave the 2016 primary in the past. He would be a terrible president anyway. Warren would be much more competent.

[H. Ross Peron]

Why does Bernie want to split the leftist vote? Does he really think he's the only candidate of sufficient purity? If he truly values the long-term strength of his cause, he'll endorse someone younger and fresher and not just hog his hardline supporters from other candidates who agree with him on practically every major issue.

Warren is a fair amount to his right, and not polling as well as him. Gabbard and Yang seem to be going nowhere. If the was a candidate anywhere as left and as strong as Bernie but younger, we'd be all for that candidate. But there isn't. This is nonsense that the other candidates all agree with him on practically every major issue. How many supported single payer before 2016 (or even 2017)? How many voted against all of the Trump military increases? It's insulting to claim that they are all like Bernie on the issues when a lot of them are obviously faking it.

Not to mention that Sanders polls far better than Warren much less Sherrod Brown were he to run. If anything the accusations (which I think would be unfair and absurd to be clear) of splitting the progressive vote ought to be directed towards them.

[Zaybay]

I dont get why everyone is so opposed to his candidacy. I mean, there really is no reason for him not to join in. He has a good amount of support in the polls, even with Warren and others taking some votes, and Trump is much easier to take on than, say, Bush 2004 or Clinton 1996. I can get the distaste for his policy, but there seems to be some weird idea permeating in this thread that:

A. He cant possibly win
B. That his candidacy somehow splits the Left

Both of which simply arent true, especially if you consider the Left to be made up of Harris, Sanders, and Warren.

He has every right to run a campaign if he wants, if he loses, its on him, and if he wins, its also on him.

I think the argument is he can’t win the primary. He’s getting a fraction of the support he received in 2016, and most of what he’s getting now is based on his universal name recognition. Both he and Biden are leading based primarily on name recognition

But the way the primary works is that candidates get eliminated as time goes on. So, if Sanders and Warren are both in the race, Warren is likely to drop out and her support would have a substantial chunk that would go to him. Just as an example.

I also think it needs to be stated that, since the field is so fractured right now, its hard to tell who has the advantage right now in the primary. None of the candidates really have a path to a majority of the vote, nor delegates. I would rather wait until the primary to see how things evolve.

[junior chįmp]

Realignment imminent

The next FDR !

Being the next FDR would not be great. FDR radically expanded the sizs of government. I personally believe that FDR is an overrated president (who tried to stay in office as long as he could). Bernie and FDR share similar ideas about expanding government. The difference is that people now know that this is federal overreach.

Of course, this is all moot, because he will not be thd nominee.

Every president is overrated and accomplished much less than history would have you believe if you read between the lines. America has too many problems now and nominee should be someone who wont waste time attempting bipartisanship with the bomb throwers that run the GOP.

[Zaybay]

I dont get why everyone is so opposed to his candidacy.

He is old and a lot of people don't like the way he conducted himself when he was mathematically eliminated from the nomination. We don't owe him anything. I'd like to leave the 2016 primary in the past. He would be a terrible president anyway. Warren would be much more competent.

I should have phrased that differently. I dont know why an overrepresented amount of people on Twitter and Atlas seem to oppose his candidacy. Polling would disagree with your statement.

Also, while Warren is a pretty good policy wonk, she has the charisma of a brick(this is coming from one of her adoring constituents). If the Left is depending on Warren to be the standard bearer, then the Left has a problem.

[Comrade Funk]

Why does Bernie want to split the leftist vote? Does he really think he's the only candidate of sufficient purity? If he truly values the long-term strength of his cause, he'll endorse someone younger and fresher and not just hog his hardline supporters from other candidates who agree with him on practically every major issue.

Warren is a fair amount to his right, and not polling as well as him. Gabbard and Yang seem to be going nowhere. If the was a candidate anywhere as left and as strong as Bernie but younger, we'd be all for that candidate. But there isn't. This is nonsense that the other candidates all agree with him on practically every major issue. How many supported single payer before 2016 (or even 2017)? How many voted against all of the Trump military increases? It's insulting to claim that they are all like Bernie on the issues when a lot of them are obviously faking it.

Right. So I assume you believe Bernie is faking it in regards to immigration, energy, and gun control too?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Why does Bernie want to split the leftist vote? Does he really think he's the only candidate of sufficient purity? If he truly values the long-term strength of his cause, he'll endorse someone younger and fresher and not just hog his hardline supporters from other candidates who agree with him on practically every major issue.

Warren is a fair amount to his right, and not polling as well as him. Gabbard and Yang seem to be going nowhere. If the was a candidate anywhere as left and as strong as Bernie but younger, we'd be all for that candidate. But there isn't. This is nonsense that the other candidates all agree with him on practically every major issue. How many supported single payer before 2016 (or even 2017)? How many voted against all of the Trump military increases? It's insulting to claim that they are all like Bernie on the issues when a lot of them are obviously faking it.

Right. So I assume you believe Bernie is faking it in regards to immigration, energy, and gun control too?

Bernie has a D- from the NRA, was clearly the more pro immigrant of the 2 major candidates last time, and I don't know where you're even going with bringing up energy.

[Comrade Funk]

I voted for Bernie in the primaries and I've never had a problem with most of his policies. My issue is the diehard Bernie or Busters who would rather see the Democrats lose, just to prove a point. It's not the time for such egotistical thinking. Also his selfishness by refusing to concede when he had no chance of victory was stupid. Just like 2008 with Hillary.

[H. Ross Peron]

I voted for Bernie in the primaries and I've never had a problem with most of his policies. My issue is the diehard Bernie or Busters who would rather see the Democrats lose, just to prove a point. It's not the time for such egotistical thinking.

Who, as people on this thread have noted, made up a very small minority of his supporters.

[Shadows]

Why does Bernie want to split the leftist vote? Does he really think he's the only candidate of sufficient purity? If he truly values the long-term strength of his cause, he'll endorse someone younger and fresher and not just hog his hardline supporters from other candidates who agree with him on practically every major issue.

There is no candidate who agrees with him. Booker has already walked back asking about minor modifications & so on. Booker & Gillibrand have categorically denied that they want the filibuster to go.

All other candidates vote for huge military spending. There is MASSIVE differences in policy & ideology. It is one thing to fight for something for half a century & another to suddenly embrace that position before an election while touting more moderate positions.

Even if IDEOLOGICALLY they are similar, they don't deserve to be the leader because they are incapable of implementing it fighting against all odds & special interests & will fold when the time comes. It is one thing to have a Harris or a Gillibrand a team player Supporting Medicare for all & another to lead that fight. Who do you want to lead? Someone with no policy history & someone who has flip-flopped or a visionary who has solely changed the narrative?

Bernie Sanders is the only one capable of enacting a range of progressive positions & can bring around a realignment like FDR did. Also, none of the other candidates are popular. Most of them are crap candidates. Warren is good on policy but has 0 political instincts & is doing bad in the polls & may lose. They are good to have on the team but are incapable of leading. Not selecting Sanders, is essentially giving on progressive policies & to make a winnable race vs Trump a competitive race.

[Fritz]

Bernie and Biden are both too old. 

[GoTfan]

I voted for Bernie in the primaries and I've never had a problem with most of his policies. My issue is the diehard Bernie or Busters who would rather see the Democrats lose, just to prove a point. It's not the time for such egotistical thinking.

Who, as people on this thread have noted, made up a very small minority of his supporters.

Well if you only got your information from Atlas, you'd be forgiven for thinking that all Sanders supporters hated African-Americans and women with every fibre of their beings.

Reality could not be further from the truth.

[Skye]

I dont get why everyone is so opposed to his candidacy.

He is old and a lot of people don't like the way he conducted himself when he was mathematically eliminated from the nomination. We don't owe him anything. I'd like to leave the 2016 primary in the past. He would be a terrible president anyway. Warren would be much more competent.

I should have phrased that differently. I dont know why an overrepresented amount of people on Twitter and Atlas seem to oppose his candidacy. Polling would disagree with your statement.

Also, while Warren is a pretty good policy wonk, she has the charisma of a brick(this is coming from one of her adoring constituents). If the Left is depending on Warren to be the standard bearer, then the Left has a problem.

A lot of people here seem to be appalled by a Biden run, yet he has very good numbers among Dems. 

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I don't want him to be the nominee, but I have no problem with Sanders jumping in.  He'll help hold the frontrunners accountable on economic issues, he won't be the nominee, he'll help energize a segment of the base that can be hard to reach, and he was an exceptionally good team-player after losing last time around (that really impressed me and AFAIK he actually demanded far fewer concessions from Hillary in return than Hillary did from Obama in 2008, to say nothing of Bill's behavior).  I can happily say that I don't regret voting for him in the 2016 primary in the least.  Ultimately, I think Sanders brings an important perspective to the Senate (and Democratic politics in general) – albeit one I don't always agree with – and when push comes to shove, he doesn't seem to be the sort to let petty internal squabbles distract from the bigger goal of defeating Trump in 2020.  

That all being said, I do think that there are some things that Sanders might want to try to improve this time around, although many of them admittedly have more to do with his advisors and more fringy supporters than with Sanders himself.  First, there was definitely a very vocal faction of the Berniecrat crowd in 2016 that could get pretty misogynistic and while I doubt they spoke for Sanders or most of his supporters, he could (and should) have done more to forcefully condemn such behavior.  In fact, this speaks to a broader issue with Sanders' 2016 campaign [albeit one many politicians have]: he was often reluctant to criticize the dark underbelly of his base.  As a result, both the anti-Semitic [irony alert] and misogynistic attitudes his more extremist/whacktivist supporters would sometimes bubble to the surface in a way that gave the false impression that they were reflective of the Berniecrat movement.  This definitely hurt Sanders in 2016 and while it could easily hurt him again in 2020, it needn't do so if he is willing to take meaningful steps to nip it in the bud.  That said, I think the accusations of racism lobbed against the Berniecrat movement were far less damaging in 2016 because while Sanders wasn't the most in-touch with the African-American community he was also pretty clearly not a racist and was running against madame "Super Predator"

Second, I think Sanders needs to be a bit more careful about some of the folks he associates with; while I'm not saying Sanders was a Moscovite candidate, it's an objective fact that Sanders and Trump were the two Presidential candidates whom GRU was actively trying to help in 2016.  Furthermore, Sanders' top campaign strategist was a prominent Democratic political operative by the name of Tad Devine.  During his time as a top media consultant for Viktor Yanukovych, Devine worked so closely with Paul Manafort and Rick Gates that he was among the first witnessed called during Manafort's trial.  Devine's former clients also include such fine gentlemen as current Interpol fugitive Alejandro Toledo, former Bolivian President Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada, and former Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern.  Then there were certain surrogates who would go off and say something crazy on TV; Sanders' campaign needs to keep a tighter leash on some of these folks in 2020. 

Lastly, and I'm not gonna spend to much time on this since I think even most Sanders supporters are already aware this is an issue, the sexual harassment which occurred in 2016 needs to be handled far better if anything like that happens in 2020.  There were clearly plenty of folks in Sanders' campaign who were perfectly willing to look the other way and that's obviously unacceptable.

[BlueSwan]

He has every right to run. I totally support his decision. Infact, I think it is going to be good to have a proper primary campaign with EVERYBODY viable running. Uncle Joe is welcome to join as well, and Hillary for that matter.  I long ago predicted that practically nobody would sit 2020 out and it is coming to fruition (OK, Hillary isn't going to run, I never thought that).

I won't be supporting Sanders, but kudos for fighting for what he believes in.

My support is pretty much up for grabs right now, though. Kamala was my favourite but I thought the Snoop/Pac lie displayed a weakness that I had not seen before. I like Beto as well, but the most certain way to ensure a democratic loss in 2020 is to campaign on tearing down the border security to Mexico, so that is a total no-go for me. I guess I still lean Kamala, but we'll see.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

I dont get why everyone is so opposed to his candidacy.

He is old and a lot of people don't like the way he conducted himself when he was mathematically eliminated from the nomination. We don't owe him anything. I'd like to leave the 2016 primary in the past. He would be a terrible president anyway. Warren would be much more competent.

I should have phrased that differently. I dont know why an overrepresented amount of people on Twitter and Atlas seem to oppose his candidacy. Polling would disagree with your statement.

Also, while Warren is a pretty good policy wonk, she has the charisma of a brick(this is coming from one of her adoring constituents). If the Left is depending on Warren to be the standard bearer, then the Left has a problem.

Polling is just name recognition. It doesn't mean anything.

Sanders is not winning the primary and he's not going to get close to winning.

[Zaybay]

I dont get why everyone is so opposed to his candidacy.

He is old and a lot of people don't like the way he conducted himself when he was mathematically eliminated from the nomination. We don't owe him anything. I'd like to leave the 2016 primary in the past. He would be a terrible president anyway. Warren would be much more competent.

I should have phrased that differently. I dont know why an overrepresented amount of people on Twitter and Atlas seem to oppose his candidacy. Polling would disagree with your statement.

Also, while Warren is a pretty good policy wonk, she has the charisma of a brick(this is coming from one of her adoring constituents). If the Left is depending on Warren to be the standard bearer, then the Left has a problem.

Polling is just name recognition. It doesn't mean anything.

Sanders is not winning the primary and he's not going to get close to winning.

The arguement of "Name Rec" is starting to fall apart, especially when you look at the current name rec numbers.

Ill be using the most recent Morning Consult numbers:


(Never heard Of)
Biden- about 5%
Sanders- about 5%
Harris- 21%
Warren- 14%
Booker- 27%
Beto- 33%

At this point, most of the challengers are getting pretty well known, and still, the numbers havent really changed besides the increase by Harris. We havent seen them debate and campaign, but that could also have a positive or negative effect on both Biden and Sanders' campaign.

So no, its not just name rec.

I also dont see how Sanders has no chance at the nomination, or that hes DOA. He has one of the better starts in the primary, and a much easier coalition he can piece together due to how the delegate system works.

Edit: Accidentally insinuated that Sanders was guaranteed the nomination. Hes not, he just got a strong chance.