Nah, the campaign regulations kick in now, once you pre-announce. (Basically, it's whenever you start acting like a candidate; several of the "totally *not* a candidate^y^e^t " candidates have pending FEC complains against them by public advocacy groups for acting as candidates for all intents and purposes, but not playing by the candidate finance rules.)
Plus, it's not like he's gobbling up hundreds of millions of corporate dollars into a SuperPAC network, which is the main reason why so few known candidates have announced.
They pre-announce before the announcement to build hype, basically. Like, presumably he'll have a speech or something somewhere, and the people in that location need to know so they can pack the hall and give standing ovations, and the press need to know so they can cover it. Logistical reasons.
2035: Chelsea Clinton to announce announcement of official pre-candidacy announcement party, she announces. There will not be an open bar at the party; drinks will cost two dollars an ounce.
Update: When asked how she intends to secure her private emails, Ms. Clinton replied: "A [nonce](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptographic_nonce)."
Yay, and I will vote for him. For those unfamiliar w where the Sand man stand on the issues, here you go. http://www.ontheissues.org/Bernie_Sanders.htm
And for those who wish to donate to his campaign, you can do so [here.](https://berniesanders.com/donate/)
Unfortunately, he's going to need a shit ton of cash to take on the Hillary machine.
**EDIT:** It looks like reddit killed his campaign website for tonight, but bookmark that shit and donate later!
**Edit #2:** You can still donate using this [link](https://act.myngp.com/Forms/4906239186820270080) even though his campaign website is down thanks to reddit.
Thank you for posting. For the first time in my life I'm able to support a representative with more than just my vote. While I wish the reality of the situation was that all I need is my vote, I unfortunately don't believe that. I just made a contribution and am going to continue to support Bernie everywhere I can.
There's an indiegogo on /r/SandersForPresident I recently donated to that's trying to get a site-wide Reddit ad for the subreddit to gain awareness.
Not directly a donation to Sanders but a good way to gift some money nonetheless.
This. For the first time I have someone that I genuinely will support. I have made up my mind and will vote for him when he run. Ill donate as soon as he announce his candidacy.
Bernie has said himself, to have any chance of winning, he will need to organize an unprecedented grass roots movement.
The enthusiasm shown in the thread is giving me great hope!!
Go Bernie!
Not American, but I hope he gets the nomination. Hilary is too right of left for me personally. I think he would be great for you guys and the world in general.
I'm coming into this election cycle with an open mind. I've voted republican in the past, but a lot of my views have shifted. From what I've read on here and elsewhere, Sanders seems just like who we need in the Oval. But I have some questions about some of his history.
* Voted NO on establishing nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids. (Apr 2003) Is this just a preference to leave it up to the states? I know the system has worked in many cases. Edit: looks like this was answered above.
* Voted NO on almost every free trade agreement. I don't know enough about about these specifically, but trade seems like a good thing. Is it because of something he doesn't agree with that's going on in these countries?
* Rated F by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun control voting record. (Dec 2003) Is this just the NRA being stupid? It seems like he's fairly moderate, voting yes to allowing guns on Amtraks, for commercial pilots, and to prevent foreign aid to restrict gun ownership. Edit: the link you posted lists him as "neutral" on gun control, so that's good.
* Voted NO on adopting the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. (Oct 2004) Voted YES on implementing the 9/11 Commission report. (Mar 2007) What changed?
>Voted NO on almost every free trade agreement. I don't know enough about about these specifically, but trade seems like a good thing. Is it because of something he doesn't agree with that's going on in these countries?
"Free trade agreements" are just names. They are trade agreements, not "free trade agreements." I'm assuming you're talking about the TPP, to which Bernie is opposed primarily because it's being developed in secret and fast-track is being attempted to bypass the legislative process before anyone knows the contents.
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/the-trans-pacific-trade-tpp-agreement-must-be-defeated?inline=file
>The TPP follows in the footsteps of other unfettered free trade agreements like NAFTA, CAFTA and the
Permanent Normalized Trade Agreement with China (PNTR). These treaties have forced American workers to
compete against desperate and low-wage labor around the world. The result has been massive job losses in the
United States and the shutting down of tens of thousands of factories. These corporately backed trade
agreements have significantly contributed to the race to the bottom, the collapse of the American middle class
and increased wealth and income inequality. The TPP is more of the same, but even worse.
>10 Ways that TPP would hurt Working Families
>1. TPP will allow corporations to outsource even more jobs overseas.
>2. U.S. sovereignty will be undermined by giving corporations the right to challenge our laws before international tribunals.
>3. Wages, benefits, and collective bargaining will be threatened.
>4. Our ability to protect the environment will be undermined.
>5. Food Safety Standards will be threatened.
>6. Buy America laws could come to an end.
>7. Prescription drug prices will increase, access to life saving drugs will decrease, and the profits of drug companies will go up
>8. Wall Street would benefit at the expense of everyone else.
>9. The TPP would reward authoritarian regimes like Vietnam that systematically violate human rights.
>10. The TPP has no expiration date, making it virtually impossible to repeal.
The actual link has the full details of each point.
Looks like the Amber Alert question was answered.
>Rated F by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun control voting record. (Dec 2003) Is this just the NRA being stupid? It seems like he's fairly moderate, voting yes to allowing guns on Amtraks, for commercial pilots, and to prevent foreign aid to restrict gun ownership. Edit: the link you posted lists him as "neutral" on gun control, so that's good.
http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Bernie_Sanders_Gun_Control.htm
> Voted YES on banning high-capacity magazines of over 10 bullets.
> Voted YES on allowing firearms in checked baggage on Amtrak trains.
> Voted YES on prohibiting foreign & UN aid that restricts US gun ownership.
> Voted YES on prohibiting product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers.
> Voted YES on prohibiting suing gunmakers & sellers for gun misuse.
> Voted NO on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1.
> Rated F by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun control voting record.
Out of 6 votes, I see 2 that are "pro-gun control." That's an "F"? Shame on the NRA.
>Voted NO on adopting the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. (Oct 2004) Voted YES on implementing the 9/11 Commission report. (Mar 2007) What changed?
2004:
>Voted NO on adopting the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.
>9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act:
>Title I: Reform of the Intelligence Community
>Subtitle A: Establishment of National Intelligence Director
>Subtitle B: National Counterterrorism Center and Civil Liberties Protections
>Subtitle C: Joint Intelligence Community Council
>Subtitle D: Improvement of Human Intelligence (HUMINT)
>Subtitle E: Improvement of Education for the Intelligence Community
>Title II: Terrorism Prevention and Prosecution
>Subtitle A: Individual Terrorists as Agents of Foreign Powers
>Subtitle B: Stop Terrorist and Military Hoaxes Act of 2004
>Subtitle C: Material Support to Terrorism Prohibition Enhancement Act of 2004
>Subtitle D: Weapons of Mass Destruction Prohibition Improvement Act of 2004
>Subtitle E: Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing
>Subtitle F: Criminal History Background Checks
>Subtitle G: Protection of United States Aviation System From Terrorist Attacks
2007:
>Voted YES on implementing the 9/11 Commission report.
>Vote on passage of a bill to implement unfinished recommendations of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (9/11 Commission) to fight the war on terror more effectively:
>I: Improving Intelligence and Information Sharing within the Federal Government and with State, Local, and Tribal Governments
>II: Homeland Security Grants
>III: Communications Operability and Interoperability
>IV: Emergency Management Performance Grants Program
>V: Enhancing Security of International Travel
>VI: Privacy and Civil Liberties Matters
>VII: Enhanced Defenses Against Weapons of Mass Destruction
>VIII: Private Sector Preparedness
>IX: Transportation Security Planning and Information Sharing
>X: Incident Command System
>XI: Critical Infrastructure Protection
>XII: Congressional Oversight of Intelligence
>XIII: International Cooperation on Antiterrorism Technologies
>XIV: Transportation and Interoperable Communication
>XV: Public Transportation Terrorism Prevention
>XVII: 911 Modernization
>XIX: Advancement of Democratic Values
>Opponents recommend voting NO because:
>One of the authors of the 9/11 Commission report said, the President's announced strategy should be given a chance to succeed. That is what I think we should do, give this plan a chance to succeed. Our troops in theater, our commanders, and the Iraqi leaders all believe they can see early signs of success in this program, even though it has just begun, and they are cautiously optimistic that it can succeed. I think it would be unconscionable for the Congress, seeing the beginnings of success here, to then act in any way that would pull the rug out from under our troops and make it impossible for them to achieve their mission.
The reason seems to be that the 2004 Act and the 2007 Act are significantly different. I couldn't find the specific reason that caused him to vote the way he did.
> Out of 6 votes, I see 2 that are "pro-gun control." That's an "F"? Shame on the NRA.
From the page: "The following ratings are based on lifetime voting records on gun issues and the results of a questionnaire sent to all Congressional candidates; the NRA assigned a letter grade (with A+ being the highest and F being the lowest)."
He might have answered the questionnaire very pro-gun control. Also the high capacity magazine and the waiting period bill were the most important of those 6 by far.
The NRA also factors in Political Affiliation. Democrats almost universally have lower ratings than Republicans, regardless of voting records. I can't remember a Democrat that didn't get the F Rating from the NRA.
EDIT: There ranking is based on a survey and past voting record. Basically the NRA also adds their own "opinion" which means if they don't like Democrats they can give them bad ratings no matter what their *actual* stance is. I believe they have time and time again said Obama was trying to kill peoples right to bear arms despite him never even advocating for Gun Control, let alone agreeing to sign it into law.
> Also the high capacity magazine and the waiting period bill were the most important of those 6 by far.
I've got no real horse in the race of gun control, but why is keeping a 3-day waiting period on a gun purchase over a 1-day waiting period so important to gun enthusiasts?
It seems trivial to me on the outside, what am I missing?
It's not even close how much better Sanders would be than Hilary. I can't wait to vote for him, I feel like he's one of the very few that would actually try and represent we people. We sorely need someone like him and you can look at his history and know he isn't a liar and will stand up for what's right.
This comment has been overwritten by an open source script to protect this user's privacy.
If you would like to do the same, add the browser extension [TamperMonkey](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/tampermonkey/dhdgffkkebhmkfjojejmpbldmpobfkfo) for Chrome (or [GreaseMonkey](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/greasemonkey/) for Firefox) and add [this open source script](https://greasyfork.org/en/scripts/10380-reddit-overwrite).
Then simply click on your username on Reddit, go to the comments tab, and hit the new OVERWRITE button at the top.
I like your optimism. There's no politician that I'd say this about. I guess you could say that I'm jaded.
I'm middle-ground - I'm equally disgusted by republicans and democrats.
Why should I support Bernie Sanders?
I'll give you three very good reasons.
One: [Bernie Sander's top campaign contributers](http://i.imgur.com/GCOVi0J.png)
Two: [Legislative history](https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/browse?sponsor=400357)
Three: [Powerful speech backed by said history](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsDYAtKlsT4)
Edit: Thanks for the gold kind stranger.
I believe his positions are more or less anti war and anti bulk surveillance, which are two good reasons to vote for him. I think he's also pro NN and against the TPP.
As someone who is not dead set on voting for Hillary but who probably might if not convinced otherwise, why?
Why is Sanders a "way better choice" than Clinton? I ask sincerely. I want to be informed.
> Compare their donors
Also, note that these are just the larger of his donations. 61% of his donors are individual contributors under $200. No one comes near this.
What was Obama's during the 2008 campaign, if you remember? I seem to recall his high number of small individual donations being a huge talking point in the media.
Better than an *actual socialist* in the white house? Ha they'll have a field day. The Fox News Headquarters will look like something out of The Wolf of Wall Street.
Wow. Just...... Wow
Clinton's list is like the who's who of corporate scum.
Sanders' list looks like we the people.
He will never get elected at this rate...
Hillary represents everything negative about the current Obama administration without any real upside. She's extremely pro corporate, pro big government, pro keeping secrets from the public, and about as entrenched in the (completely un-responsive) establishment as one can get. If you think the current direction the country is moving is dandy, voting Hillary is the single best thing you can do to make sure nothing whatsoever changes.
Sanders may end up being falling short of his potential, as Obama has, but he's pro net neutrality, pro middle class, and strikes me as a very honest and progressive politician. I would vote for Elizabeth Warren over him, but she's not running.
E: This was a quick off the cuff comment, more on Sanders per /u/sjleader: "Also, he supports better trade policies, infrastructure and new clean energy spending, raising taxes on the wealthiest, closing loop holes for wall st banks to avoid taxes-- rewarding people for bringing jobs home not for sending them to china, etc etc. Go to [senate.sanders.gov] (http://www.sanders.senate.gov/) and you can learn about him."
I know this is hyperbole, but if we criticize politicians for owning up to their mistakes and admitting they are now against something they were once for (in a genuine way) we will just have politicians that double down on their bad choices instead for fear of public backlash.
I would agree with you in principle, but I think in this context Clinton was honestly against the war but didn't have the backbone to stand up against it. While that totally makes sense for a politically calculated standpoint, it makes her seem weak when compared to somebody who is willing to stand on principle. Remember that a huge amount of people respected Ron Paul for his honest and principled stances, even if a lot of us didn't agree with his general right-wing platform. Sanders offers a left of center platform it the principles and backbone to stand up for it, something the cowardly democratic party is sorely lacking in. Unfourtunetely in Hillary's case, she's a typical democrat when it comes to spine and principle.
Sanders has some really great ideas, has worked very hard to make things better in America. Plus, he has none of the baggage that Clinton has. Conservatives go a lot less crazy and rabid about Sanders, so he might swing some republican votes in the general that Clinton would not.
He's a good candidate, in matters of policy, character and having him as the nominee is good a game strategy for putting a democrat in the White House next year.
Check out some of the headlines from the past few years from /r/politics with his name in them to get an idea of what he has done with his career.
Republicans that follow politics at all would much rather have Clinton. Sanders is actually progressive. Look at the list of donors posted above, its ALL unions for him.
this is why Republicans paint unions as the big bad guys. if they can get rid of union power in states they can essentially eliminate political opponents like Bernie and take away the last few voices out there fighting for the working man.
as a Wisconsinite, where the middle class has had the biggest declines of wealth in the nation I can tell you that busting up and eliminating unions obviously doesn't work.
Dude, that's the state where Scott... Walker? rules the roost, right? That guy is a certifiable nutjob.
Yeah, let's "give up our weekends." Fucking asshat.
The conservative machine goes rabid over whoever is most likely to win. As soon as Sanders looks like he might take the lead, the machine will turn to him and proceed to go rabid.
That's true, but I was talking about the way people have been conditioned over the last few years to clench their buttholes tight enough to create diamonds whenever they the word "Hillary". It's a ubiquitous pavlovian response by now, and it wouldn't affect Sanders at all.
She is chiseled out of the old granite of Washington politics, and will always be pro-war and pro-drug wars and the separation of the two parties through division to keep the status quo and attention off Wall St. etc.
>As someone who is not dead set on voting for Hillary but who probably might if not convinced otherwise, why?
Hillary represents corporate interests and big business rather than the working people/average person.
>Why is Sanders a "way better choice" than Clinton? I ask sincerely. I want to be informed.
If you believe in the equal and fair treatment and payment of employees and all people, and having social services to improve health care, welfare, and education, that is what Sanders is all about.
If you support stuff like the TPP, big business, and stuff to move jobs out of the US to save money, and allow big businesses to have even more advantages over average people, go for Hillary.
Damn, that's the sort of shit we used to call republican before republicans stopped being that and just started being irrational obstructionists instead.
Exactly how zootam put it, Clinton toes the corporate line while sanders has repeatedly put put his vote where is mouth is by going against the corporate sponsors wishes and pushing for things that actually benefit "the people"
The problem is, democrats don't look at who is a better choice than Clinton, they look at who is a better choice than any of the republicans and has the best chance of beating whoever they put forward.
I look forward to the primaries, but I really don't see much hope for Sanders against the 600 lb gorilla.
That's always true, though.
I expect that the right will make some sort of changes in the coming years, because the country as a whole is clearly blue, but the country as a whole does not vote, and people tend to vote more as they age.
The right needs to do something to convert several of the current voters or else they will continue to soundly lose presidential elections based on the trends we've been seeing. I doubt that we will see that wave significantly shift local elections for a while, though assuming nothing changes.
Not exactly.
ANY democrat could have beaten ANY republican in that race because of the fallout from Bush. The dems used that opening to safely make history through either of their two easiest options.
I hate to break it to you, but Sanders isn't even on the same planet as Obama as far as inspiring speeches go.
That's what really drove his candidacy. He didn't have much to run on. He was just really good at getting his views across and inspiring people.
I'm not so sure Hillary can win the general, though.
The electoral math heavily favors the democrats this year. Factor in the huge influx of money to fringe GOP candidates that will make the Republican primary a circus freak show and draw their discussion to topics mainstream candidates want to avoid, and I would say whoever wins the Dem primary is a heavy favorite to win.
That said, the Democrats could teach the Chicago Cubs a thing or two about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
No, they didn't. Many Dems thought that Obama shouldn't be the final selection until 2016. They were fine with him running though and ultimately believed he would be the nominee one day. They just didn't think it would happen in 2008.
Sanders is more comparable to Kucinich.
I'm conflicted. In an ideal world, Sanders would be President. But, I'm more concerned with a Democrat getting into the White House than my perfect Democrat getting in. I'll vote for him in the primaries. And the Democrats have such an advantage in the electoral college that I think almost any Democrat can be elected. But, I don't know if his message can reach the masses through his look, his tone of voice, and his age. And that's stupid, but it's unfortunately a thing you have to consider when talking about the general electorate.
Hopefully, he comes off well in the debates. And one thing that's good about Sanders getting in is that it allows other Democrats to get in so there can be a real debate.
Well, my dream election would be Sanders vs. Paul.
It would be the first election where my decision is who is the better candidate rather than who is the least terrible candidate.
> I'm more concerned with a Democrat getting into the White House than my perfect Democrat getting in
This, unfortunately, is why so many people conflate a third party vote with a wasted vote. It's a brutal, self- inflicted and perpetuating cycle.
60% people of people didn't vote in the last election. That 60 percent could elect whoever the fuck they wanted if they just voted. It is a huge block. The problem is no one voting so the only people electing our candidates are old people.
Or gender. My gf is a liberal university professor and she flat told me that she intends to vote for Hillary to advance women, regardless of Hillary's or anyone else's positions on the issues.
Well, you could argue that Obama's presidency has forced the rest of us to realize that, well, racism isn't dead. It was something we could pretend we conquered (though any non-white would dispute it), but only looking at the pure vitriol directed at our president convinced many that, nope, racism is still alive and well.
I'm white and would never even consider pretending that we have "conquered" racism, pre or post Obama administration. Anyone with that mindset is very ignorant to the realities of social/civil/racial injustice.
Edit: realities, not relatives.
In Poli sci classes with this Swedish girl. Super socialist. Thinks everything America does is so neo con, conservative, repressive etc. Is so excited for Hilary just because she is a woman. I told her Hilary was a conservative, so she called me a hipster. Welcome to election season.
I really hope that some time in the future we will have Elizabeth Warren run. She's still got a lot of good work she can do from the Senate right now, though.
I'm sure he's referring to the fact that Bernie Sanders is Jewish. Also, people *may* dismiss Sanders due to the fact that he'd be around 74 (Edit: 75. Guess I forgot what year it was) at the time of inauguration. However, Reagan was nearly 70 when he took office. Hilary Clinton would be 68 by inauguration. It's not like she's much younger. That's really not what most people are paying attention to. I think, and I really hope, that these aren't the things people will use to detract from Sanders' campaigning. There's a *lot* that the right has to dislike about Sanders, and I think that's going to take precedence over his age and religious background.
He will be 75. 79 for a theoretical second term. Reagan was 73 to start his second term which history looks back on as 'alzheimerzy'. Ignoring his age is foolish. Out of 330M Americans how is their not a single one of you in politics over 35 who espouses the same principles? Semi-seriously what are Matt Damon and George Clooney up to next year?
Well, the pool gets a lot smaller when you limit yourself to people who actually have the credentials necessary to make a reasonable campaign for president. If you haven't been in Congress or a Governor, you'd better be a very public, successful business leader, or possibly a war hero. Most of the successful business people with similar values wouldn't hold any sort of office (Buffett, Gates), and there aren't that many very famous war heroes around.
Be annoying without shame. Eight years ago, conventional wisdom and the media assured us that Clinton was a lock for the democratic nomination. Young people and social media helped give Obama the boost he needed to contend with Hillary in the early primaries. If Sanders has a strong showing in only a couple of states, the media will be forced to take him seriously. Clinton is about as progressive as Richard Nixon, and it would be a breath of fresh air to have a democratic nominee willing to take on corporations.
Unfortunately Obama was a major disappointment to most of us. He talked the talk, but he didn't have the record to prove that he could walk the walk. Sanders is a candidate that will scare the shit out of the thoroughly corrupt establishment.
>Clinton is about as progressive as Richard Nixon
Nixon was not that bad of a guy. I would take him over every other republican candidate so far. he loved the environment and was pretty good for civil rights.
~~**EDIT! BernieSanders.com is undergoing a DDOS attack. For those of you who would like to contribute to the senator's campaign,** [**you can do so through this official form.**](https://act.myngp.com/Forms/4906239186820270080)~~
Ladies and gentlemen, [it's time!!!!!!](https://gfycat.com/ScornfulFlashyArctichare)
#**/r/SandersForPresident.**
We've been working for a over a year (since December, 2013 to be precise) to build up a large, informative, and supportive knowledge-base for all things pertaining to Senator Sanders. We want him in the White House, and if you're reading this and you have ANY interest in learning more about him, his voting history, and the beliefs he stands for, please pay us a visit! I'm attaching several resources to this comment as well - just keep reading.
If you want to chip in and help the cause, go ahead and subscribe to the subreddit. Participate as often as possible. Visit multiple times a day, read the comments, and **learn all that you can.** Spread the word far and wide! Bernie DOES have a chance. It's defeatist and flat-out wrong to say anything otherwise - you're just creating a self-fulfilling prophecy if you speak that way. He's honest, authentic, and one of the only people out there standing up for the common men and women of America. But even though it's going to take a lot of work to triumph over Hillary and her endless pockets of Wall Street money, we can still do it.
Look at it this way. There is ZERO risk in voting for him in the Primary, because if he earns the Democratic nomination, GREAT! He'll have a great chance at beating the "best" Republican candidate. And if he loses to Hillary, that's too bad, but you can still always just vote for her if you *really* don't want a Republican in the White House. But he won't be a spoiler. He won't cause a Nader Effect. And if you disregard all the stigma and misinformation, and just let his policies and 35 year history do the talking, the choice is obvious. He needs to be the next President of the United States of America. And he can be.
* [Link to his official campaign website](https://www.berniesanders.com)
* [Link to his OnTheIssues.org page](http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/bernie_sanders.htm#). Don't let people spread misinformation! Learn as much as you can about Senator Sanders and spread the knowledge far and wide. His opponents will make up whatever kind of baseless, slanderous nonsense possible to derail him and his message. The best way to defend against that is to PROVE them wrong, with citations and facts.
* [Link to his official 12-step platform](https://berniesanders.com/issues/)
* Go to his website and register as a volunteer!
* Go to his website and DONATE!
* [Link to our "Reddit Campaign," where we will be offering additional information and instruction on how you can help out](https://np.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/31by9a/the_reddit_campaign_for_sanders_2016/)
And before anyone asks - No. I do not work for Senator Sanders or his campaign. I am just a regular person like you that has decided it's time to try and fight for the things I believe in. You can too. Join us at /r/SandersForPresident.
EDIT: One more thing......
##**GET HYPED!!!!!!**
EDIT x2: Thanks for the gold, truly. But PLEASE. Donate that money to Bernie and his campaign instead! I don't need it. Our future President does :)
~~EDIT x3: You guys gave Bernie's website the hug of death! DON'T KILL BERNIE! HE'S NO GOOD TO US DEAD!~~
I'm not a Democrat or a Republican but I have some serious respect for Sanders. I spent two years working on the hill and routinely saw Sanders getting his own laundry. That sounds trivial, but Sanders doesn't make his unpaid college kid interns get his dirty laundry. It's something small that speaks greatly to his character
Are you being a smartass or did you seriously see this? (Sorry to ask but Reddit has made me a skeptic, haha.) I like him for several other reasons already but this would be pretty cool. Certainly a far cry from a VP candidate posing with dishes that had already been cleaned in a soup kitchen for publicity...
Yes seriously. I usually took my lunch break at either a pizza joint on the hill or the Georgetown cleaners (which has a badass deli) on the hill. Sanders did his laundry there
He'll have mine as well. I'm registered as "no party preference", should I switch to "democrat", or will I have an option to vote for him in the primaries?
California
Thanks, this is why I asked. I've heard that when you're "no party preference" some candidates aren't available to vote for during primaries.
Which is exactly what Rush Limbaugh tried to do in the Obama-Hillary primaries in 2008.
Seeing Obama as the real threat, he marshaled his fat, doughy hate army to vote in every open primary for Hillary.
Yep, this is exactly it. Very easy for an opposing party to vote for the easier candidate to win against if it were open, even to "no party preference".
Ohio has a closed primary, so as an independent, I would not be able to cast a vote for Senator Sanders. I will be changing my registration to Democrat soon.
I get paid Thursday. If Bernie Sanders announces his running for the Democrat nomination, I pledge $100 to his campaign. I ask you Reddit to not only hold me to my promise, but make your own as well. Les show the country where the power really is in this country. It's not with the billionaires and their foundations that cater to the ultra elite. It is with the people and the people want /r/SandersForPresident
I have voted in three presidential elections but about a month ago I made my first-ever political contribution, and I gave it to somebody who hadn't even decided on whether he's going to run or not. That's how confident I am that Bernie is my candidate.
Here's the deal I'll make. PM me a screenshot of your donation confirmation later this week and I'll throw him another $50. How's that sound?
I've made a note of it. It will be my first political donation as well, but for someone willing to fight to rebuild our bridges I'm willing to make that commitment.
Ron Pauler here. You will need to:
1. Raise tens of millions of dollars from grassroots
2. Don't expect that Bernie will know what to do with millions of dollars in campaign funds just because he's a "good guy." Ron Paul proved totally incompetent in effectively utilizing his millions in 2008 ([see this hilariously cringe-worthy ad](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30yxHqSUva8) and strategically unsound (though slightly more competent)) in 2012. In fact, what you really need is to divert some of those millions to a PAC run by someone competent and unafraid in the grassroots, who will say the hard-hitting things the campaign is afraid to say. Arguably the [most effective Ron Paul 2012 ad](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Rv0Z5SNrF4) (done in response to the newsletter scandal) came not from the campaign but from one of the superPACs.
3. Know your enemy. If you want to have a shot in hell, study Paul's two campaigns, and know that your biggest enemy in defeating Hillary will not be Hillary's campaign or the super PACs, but the media. The media are the ones who will kneecap your candidate if he gains any actual traction. On the Democratic side, you've already seen this with Ralph Nader's campaigns. The Rand Paul grassroots (which I include myself in) is still searching for a decent strategy to prevent the inevitable media knee-capping of Rand.
4. In addition to moderate knee-capping all season long, expect the media to especially screw you over at crucial junctures. Again, see Ron Paul 2012 for examples: one week before the Iowa primary, with Paul #1 in all the Iowa polls, they manufactured the "Santorum surge" out of thin air while suddenly, randomly choosing to obsess over the newsletter "scandal" (without getting into another debate with newsletter trolls, regardless of your opinion on that "scandal," the timing of the media's decision to focus on it was incredibly blatant, given that this was an old scandal that could have been brought up at any fucking time over several decades or any time during the 2012 or 2008 campaign season).
5. ~~Profit!~~ Win!
Bonus step: Find an ideologically pure/un-corrupt millionaire/billionaire to help out. In 2012 the largest contributor to Ron Paul's campaign (via superPACs) was Peter Thiel, who donated a few million. Also in 2008 Peter Schiff, a well-known investment manager, acted on his conscience and [sent a personal letter](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:GAy9IIY82F0J:www.dailypaul.com/6092/investment-advisor-peter-schiff-appeals-to-60000-in-e-mail-blast+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us) to all his clients urging them to support Paul. There is still some honest money out there. Go find it!
Finally having a democratic socialist option in the US will be pretty nice (well, apart from the Green Party). Maybe it's time to register for the Democratic Party, even if I find myself left of it on almost every issue, just to have a hand in pushing Sanders in the primaries.
You know what's fun? Go to that sub (of which I was subscriber # like 15, I was in the thread where it got created!) and keep hitting F5. You're getting roughly a new subscriber every second, good times.
As a Vermonter this makes me super proud...
As an American this GETS ME HYPED
Bernie is one of the last few good guys down in DC...
It is an uphill battle, but we can do it. It will take work and education of the masses, but it can be done...
We have to beat the Clinton Machine, and we are gonna do it the Bernie way. Hype train full steam baby!
LETS DO THIS Y'ALL
I live in Iowa! Definitely going to caucus for him. I got a picture with him when he came to stump for Bruce Braley (for all the good it did). I know other people will too.
While in some respects that was a war of attrition, it was apparent immediately after Super Tuesday that Obama had a big enough lead to win in the end. If you recall it didn't really matter that Hillary won a lot of big primaries afterwards because the margins wouldn't have been enough.
And that's why Little Money will have to get his back. He doesn't have to outspend the other candidates, he just has to raise a reasonably competitive amount of funds.
time for the biggest crowdfunding campaign ever, i'm sure everyone who wants to vote for him could spare <$10
i just think of it as a small price to pay to avoid clinton
I've been living in the United States since 2001, after immigrating from Argentina. This upcoming election, I will finally be enfranchised. As a permanent resident and soon-to-be citizen of the United States of America, I feel strongly about politics and the direction of our country. I like Bernie's stance on many issues, and am planning on donating to his cause and voting for him. Politics is extremely dirty and corporations have WAY too much sway on legislation, and it needs to end.
Bernie has my vote.
On global warming:
* Sanders is a vocal advocate about the ramifications of global warming. In a speech on the Senate floor on July 26, 2012, Sanders addressed claims made by fellow Senator Jim Inhofe: "The bottom line is when Senator Inhofe says global warming is a hoax, he is just dead wrong, according to the vast majority of climate scientists."
* * It's sad that it's so valiant for someone to point out science and the facts simply because the opposition is filling their pockets up to defend what is wrong, but, alas, here we are, and Bernie is standing up for the truth, as dramatic as the sounds. That's a lot of commas.
On Public Disclosures and Transparency:
* Sanders supports the DISCLOSE Act, which would make campaign finances more transparent and ban U.S. corporations controlled by foreign interests from making political expenditures.
* * In other words, he's against dirty politics.
On BEING A GOOD HUMAN BEING AND ACCEPTING EVERYONE:
* Sanders is a social liberal, supporting LGBT rights, same-sex marriage, and pro-choice legislation.
* * I know this is a contested issue, but in my personal opinion, this shouldn't even be a question in this day and age. Another point for him.
Elizabeth Warren certainly won't endorse Hillary over Bernie; a quick check of each of their backgrounds will tell you that Bernie has been far more consistent in his shouting down Wall Street and corporate America, whereas Hillary actively took money (and still does, if OpenSecrets is to be believed) from Goldman-Sachs to deliver speeches to them that claimed the bankers were just "misunderstood."
I don't care if he doesn't have the highest chance of winning (and it's up to the people not the media to determine that btw), he shares my views and values and that's what counts. He's got my vote!
I would a million million million times take Bernie over Clinton.
Sadly I am not sure if Bernie can win over the GOP nominees and I would rather have Clinton a million times over any of them at the moment.
I feel like I'm choosing between my heart and my brain right now.
Unless Bernie Sanders wins, then you have to try and keep moderate and conservative Dems from jumping ship to the Republicans or sitting out. Bernie Sanders is very popular among Liberal Democrats who are like 40% of the party but we need at least 90% of the party and high turnout to win. If Bernie Sanders wants my vote he has to prove he has electability, 2016 with the Supreme Court in peril and a likely war with Iran if the Republicans win is too important for a protest vote.
Bernie's consistent, populist rhetoric and history of running and winning as an Independent (yet running as a Democrat in this election) would attract all the disenfranchised voters who have given up, and since most people are more politically motivated by who they dislike than who they like, most Democrats would vote against the Republican nominee by voting for Bernie. I'd say those are reasons he has a damn good chance at winning, but only if we pull together for him!
Vote for Bernie in the primaries. If he doesn't win, you can vote for... Hilary.
Here is how he wins:
* Step 1) Run as a democrat (seems to be happening)
* Step 2) Have people actually participate in the primaries. (This requires more than slacktivism and upvotes... like literal votes.
* Step 3) Win said primaries. (If people vote for the issues and not the party, this is actually not unreasonable).
* Step 4) Be the democratic candidate... which means that the people who vote party lines will see him as the lesser of two evils and vote democrat.
We have now won the presidential election with a liberal democratic socialist, we are now going to spend 4 years calling out bullshit and being a general grump. And it will be glorious.
Edit: [Here is the link to his campaign page.](https://berniesanders.com/) you can sign up for emails, donations, or ways you are willing to volunteer.
Getting people to vote against Hillary is fucking easy so let's encourage people to do that. She's unlikable. She's in the banks corner. She's a wolf in sheep's clothing and it's not hard to point that out or see. Hell... Conservatives will come out in droves in the open primaries to vote for anyone other than her thinking the only way dems win in 2016 is with her. They don't want her running more than we do.
No republican is winning a national election in 2 years. It's not happening. Their voting block is old and dying, and the millenial tidal wave that washed Obama in will be 8 years older with a pretty vocal and active new progressive young generation creeping up behind the Millenials. The electoral map is turning more and more blue. By 2020 Texas will be blue.
Attack Hillary on things the GOP won't ever touch her on: Money and it's influence, for one. Stay on message and let the Fox News be Bernie's biggest supporter.
We need a message and a candidate who truly speaks for the American people.
"Our country's political process is bought and if we don't fix it now it will be irreversible. There's a trillion dollars of unremoveable student loan debt that is an anchor around millions of recent graduates who have no opportunities to return that investment. Our infrastructure is crumbling while we spent trillions on War. Wages have been stagnant and deflated and the cost of living has increased. The top 1% cratered the economy and then saw 99% of all new financial gains since. The middle class is disappearing and the safety net keeping many Americans afloat is under attack from the billionaire class and their wallets and mouthpieces who are exteacting billions from the economy."
The candidate is Bernie Sanders.
I think it's pretty clear to every progressive minded voter that Bernie Sanders is by and far the best candidate for president in a generation (or several). Frankly, he is probably the only hope America has of achieving an equal and prosperous future. The country is literally at the brink and the ponzi scheme of crony capitalism is this close to collapsing - it's highly unlikely that it will last another 8 years.
The problem is convincing a very large conglomeration of honest, hardworking, but - let's not mince words - simple people who's live are primarily focused on their own lives and their families, who don't travel outside their home states, who don't follow world politics or understand competing economic theories, who are informed by the occasional glance at newspaper stand or what they see for a few hours at night on Fox or MSNBC. They are just getting by and working hard and they don't really care if gay marriage is legal or abortion is illegal or how much a bank bailout costs or just, exactly, where Yemen is on the map.
These are the people that need to be motivated - they are worlds apart from /r/politics. Granted, they will understand and probably agree with the message, but it's matter of getting that message to them and getting it there without it being warped by a dozen different pundits who are paid quite a lot of money to make sure people are provided with doubt and fear and uncertainty.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, Bernie Sanders might be best possible presidential candidate America can find, but he is going to face the most difficult and uphill battle potentially ever faced by a candidate.
Hillary is by far an objectively worse candidate, but she is the definition of a shoe-in. Literally the only thing she has to do to win is not fuck up and let the GOP twist themselves into a meaningless, pasty white knot. The Democratic party's mission is to win an election, nothing more. They aren't interested in the best candidate, they're interested in the candidate that will win.
Don't get me wrong - it can be done. But Bernie Sanders and every single person who has any insight into the state of America will have to fit harder than likely any candidate has before to overcome every instinct of a short-sighted, for profit electoral system in order to win.
Godspeed to you all.
This means people need to REGISTER TO VOTE. You can't vote in primaries if you're not registered to vote, and if you're not a registered Democrat, you may not be able to vote in the Democratic Primary (depending on your state). Republican, Independent, or Democrat, if you want Bernie Sanders more than Hillary Clinton, you need to register to vote and vote him over her in the primary. THIS is the REAL presidential race.
Please, people, show up to the primaries. The future of our country will be decided there. I'm fully confident that if he wins the primaries, he can win the entire thing, but winning the primary is far from sure. Get out there and take our country back!
I actually just now went online to change my party affiliation from Independent to Democrat for this exact reason. I've voted in every General Election possible since I was eligible, but this will be my first Primary.
I was just reading an interview at random that took place right before the 2012 election and then saw this post. One question/response from that interview stood out as soon as I saw that Sanders would be running.
> ***Does openly supporting a political candidate (i.e., Obama) represent a tacit endorsement of all of that politician's positions (drone strikes, indefinite detention of terror suspects, etc.)?***
>
>
> Of course it does but what the fuck else are you going to do, support the fascist? In a choice between AIDS and the clap, you chose the clap, but wouldn't it be nice to be able to choose between a bowl of ice cream and AIDS instead? If you vote for Obama you are voting for drone strikes, but if you vote for Romney you are voting for war with Iran. You can't ever get what you want, vote or don't but do not delude yourself that somehow the Democrats are the good guys, they are just the less diabolical guys.
This is not a new opinion by any means. South Park did it with the Giant Douche vs. Turd Sandwich, Reddit is forever going on about how both parties are the same etc or only have slight differences and there's a lot of truth to it.
But I think we've finally got it. **Bernie Sanders is that bowl of ice cream.** Seriously. I don't think I've been able to say that about any presidential candidate in either of the two major parties ever, even in the primaries. Actually, Kucinich was quite good. As I recall my issue with him was that if he actually won he'd just get demolished by the Republicans and none of his great ideas (the kind that the majority of the Democratic Party do not support and the VAST majority of the Republican Party do not support) would be able to take flight. But Bernie Sanders doesn't seem like the type to cater to people, get bowled over by the Republicans and/or members of his own party, and, in the end of the day I feel he could seriously make incredible strides for this country.
P.S.
I'm not sure why it has to be a choice between ice cream and AIDS...why can't it be a choice between a bowl of ice cream and a bowl of skittles?
P.P.S.
[Here is the interview.](http://www.undertheradarmag.com/news/the_protest_survey_xiu_xius_jamie_stewart/) The interview is with Jamie Stewart, best known as the vocalist for the band Xiu Xiu. He makes [very uplifting](https://vimeo.com/13780191) and [happy](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=147fALyfxJU) songs. (Protip: Music video for the first is super appropriate for the song but if you're not keen on vomit you might want to just listen to the audio instead.)
I won't wait until Thursday to announce my offer of a political version of the Prisoner's dilemma.
I am voting for Bernie Sanders.
I will *only* vote for Bernie Sanders.
If anyone else wins the primaries, I will write in Bernie Sanders.
If you want a Democrat to win the election, best join me in voting for Bernie Sanders.
Voting for a candidate you believe in when one runs (one who actually has a chance of winning, as Bernie does) is a moral imperative.
There's no choice *but* to support Bernie for me.
[He has said](http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/232161-sanders-i-would-run-to-win-in-2016) on a number of occasions that if he runs, [he'll be running to win.](https://www.yahoo.com/autos/s/bernie-sanders-2016-run-to-win-190659577.html)
Either you take him at his word or you don't. But I think he's in it for the White House.
PS. Aren't you that guy from -- actually, nevermind. I must be mistaken.
Honest question? How does one announce that they will announce? Isn't this pre-announcement technically the announcement itself?
Once you officially announce all sorts of campaign regulations kick in.
Nah, the campaign regulations kick in now, once you pre-announce. (Basically, it's whenever you start acting like a candidate; several of the "totally *not* a candidate^y^e^t " candidates have pending FEC complains against them by public advocacy groups for acting as candidates for all intents and purposes, but not playing by the candidate finance rules.) Plus, it's not like he's gobbling up hundreds of millions of corporate dollars into a SuperPAC network, which is the main reason why so few known candidates have announced. They pre-announce before the announcement to build hype, basically. Like, presumably he'll have a speech or something somewhere, and the people in that location need to know so they can pack the hall and give standing ovations, and the press need to know so they can cover it. Logistical reasons.
2035: Chelsea Clinton to announce announcement of official pre-candidacy announcement party, she announces. There will not be an open bar at the party; drinks will cost two dollars an ounce. Update: When asked how she intends to secure her private emails, Ms. Clinton replied: "A [nonce](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptographic_nonce)."
Yay, and I will vote for him. For those unfamiliar w where the Sand man stand on the issues, here you go. http://www.ontheissues.org/Bernie_Sanders.htm
And for those who wish to donate to his campaign, you can do so [here.](https://berniesanders.com/donate/) Unfortunately, he's going to need a shit ton of cash to take on the Hillary machine. **EDIT:** It looks like reddit killed his campaign website for tonight, but bookmark that shit and donate later! **Edit #2:** You can still donate using this [link](https://act.myngp.com/Forms/4906239186820270080) even though his campaign website is down thanks to reddit.
Thank you for posting. For the first time in my life I'm able to support a representative with more than just my vote. While I wish the reality of the situation was that all I need is my vote, I unfortunately don't believe that. I just made a contribution and am going to continue to support Bernie everywhere I can.
If someone makes an Indiegogo or Kickstarter for Bernie, reddit would be all over that like ants on a gazelle carcass.
There's an indiegogo on /r/SandersForPresident I recently donated to that's trying to get a site-wide Reddit ad for the subreddit to gain awareness. Not directly a donation to Sanders but a good way to gift some money nonetheless.
This. For the first time I have someone that I genuinely will support. I have made up my mind and will vote for him when he run. Ill donate as soon as he announce his candidacy.
Bernie has said himself, to have any chance of winning, he will need to organize an unprecedented grass roots movement. The enthusiasm shown in the thread is giving me great hope!! Go Bernie!
Not American, but I hope he gets the nomination. Hilary is too right of left for me personally. I think he would be great for you guys and the world in general.
[удалено]
I'm coming into this election cycle with an open mind. I've voted republican in the past, but a lot of my views have shifted. From what I've read on here and elsewhere, Sanders seems just like who we need in the Oval. But I have some questions about some of his history. * Voted NO on establishing nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids. (Apr 2003) Is this just a preference to leave it up to the states? I know the system has worked in many cases. Edit: looks like this was answered above. * Voted NO on almost every free trade agreement. I don't know enough about about these specifically, but trade seems like a good thing. Is it because of something he doesn't agree with that's going on in these countries? * Rated F by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun control voting record. (Dec 2003) Is this just the NRA being stupid? It seems like he's fairly moderate, voting yes to allowing guns on Amtraks, for commercial pilots, and to prevent foreign aid to restrict gun ownership. Edit: the link you posted lists him as "neutral" on gun control, so that's good. * Voted NO on adopting the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. (Oct 2004) Voted YES on implementing the 9/11 Commission report. (Mar 2007) What changed?
>Voted NO on almost every free trade agreement. I don't know enough about about these specifically, but trade seems like a good thing. Is it because of something he doesn't agree with that's going on in these countries? "Free trade agreements" are just names. They are trade agreements, not "free trade agreements." I'm assuming you're talking about the TPP, to which Bernie is opposed primarily because it's being developed in secret and fast-track is being attempted to bypass the legislative process before anyone knows the contents. http://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/the-trans-pacific-trade-tpp-agreement-must-be-defeated?inline=file >The TPP follows in the footsteps of other unfettered free trade agreements like NAFTA, CAFTA and the Permanent Normalized Trade Agreement with China (PNTR). These treaties have forced American workers to compete against desperate and low-wage labor around the world. The result has been massive job losses in the United States and the shutting down of tens of thousands of factories. These corporately backed trade agreements have significantly contributed to the race to the bottom, the collapse of the American middle class and increased wealth and income inequality. The TPP is more of the same, but even worse. >10 Ways that TPP would hurt Working Families >1. TPP will allow corporations to outsource even more jobs overseas. >2. U.S. sovereignty will be undermined by giving corporations the right to challenge our laws before international tribunals. >3. Wages, benefits, and collective bargaining will be threatened. >4. Our ability to protect the environment will be undermined. >5. Food Safety Standards will be threatened. >6. Buy America laws could come to an end. >7. Prescription drug prices will increase, access to life saving drugs will decrease, and the profits of drug companies will go up >8. Wall Street would benefit at the expense of everyone else. >9. The TPP would reward authoritarian regimes like Vietnam that systematically violate human rights. >10. The TPP has no expiration date, making it virtually impossible to repeal. The actual link has the full details of each point. Looks like the Amber Alert question was answered. >Rated F by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun control voting record. (Dec 2003) Is this just the NRA being stupid? It seems like he's fairly moderate, voting yes to allowing guns on Amtraks, for commercial pilots, and to prevent foreign aid to restrict gun ownership. Edit: the link you posted lists him as "neutral" on gun control, so that's good. http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Bernie_Sanders_Gun_Control.htm > Voted YES on banning high-capacity magazines of over 10 bullets. > Voted YES on allowing firearms in checked baggage on Amtrak trains. > Voted YES on prohibiting foreign & UN aid that restricts US gun ownership. > Voted YES on prohibiting product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers. > Voted YES on prohibiting suing gunmakers & sellers for gun misuse. > Voted NO on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1. > Rated F by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun control voting record. Out of 6 votes, I see 2 that are "pro-gun control." That's an "F"? Shame on the NRA. >Voted NO on adopting the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. (Oct 2004) Voted YES on implementing the 9/11 Commission report. (Mar 2007) What changed? 2004: >Voted NO on adopting the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. >9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act: >Title I: Reform of the Intelligence Community >Subtitle A: Establishment of National Intelligence Director >Subtitle B: National Counterterrorism Center and Civil Liberties Protections >Subtitle C: Joint Intelligence Community Council >Subtitle D: Improvement of Human Intelligence (HUMINT) >Subtitle E: Improvement of Education for the Intelligence Community >Title II: Terrorism Prevention and Prosecution >Subtitle A: Individual Terrorists as Agents of Foreign Powers >Subtitle B: Stop Terrorist and Military Hoaxes Act of 2004 >Subtitle C: Material Support to Terrorism Prohibition Enhancement Act of 2004 >Subtitle D: Weapons of Mass Destruction Prohibition Improvement Act of 2004 >Subtitle E: Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing >Subtitle F: Criminal History Background Checks >Subtitle G: Protection of United States Aviation System From Terrorist Attacks 2007: >Voted YES on implementing the 9/11 Commission report. >Vote on passage of a bill to implement unfinished recommendations of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (9/11 Commission) to fight the war on terror more effectively: >I: Improving Intelligence and Information Sharing within the Federal Government and with State, Local, and Tribal Governments >II: Homeland Security Grants >III: Communications Operability and Interoperability >IV: Emergency Management Performance Grants Program >V: Enhancing Security of International Travel >VI: Privacy and Civil Liberties Matters >VII: Enhanced Defenses Against Weapons of Mass Destruction >VIII: Private Sector Preparedness >IX: Transportation Security Planning and Information Sharing >X: Incident Command System >XI: Critical Infrastructure Protection >XII: Congressional Oversight of Intelligence >XIII: International Cooperation on Antiterrorism Technologies >XIV: Transportation and Interoperable Communication >XV: Public Transportation Terrorism Prevention >XVII: 911 Modernization >XIX: Advancement of Democratic Values >Opponents recommend voting NO because: >One of the authors of the 9/11 Commission report said, the President's announced strategy should be given a chance to succeed. That is what I think we should do, give this plan a chance to succeed. Our troops in theater, our commanders, and the Iraqi leaders all believe they can see early signs of success in this program, even though it has just begun, and they are cautiously optimistic that it can succeed. I think it would be unconscionable for the Congress, seeing the beginnings of success here, to then act in any way that would pull the rug out from under our troops and make it impossible for them to achieve their mission. The reason seems to be that the 2004 Act and the 2007 Act are significantly different. I couldn't find the specific reason that caused him to vote the way he did.
> Out of 6 votes, I see 2 that are "pro-gun control." That's an "F"? Shame on the NRA. From the page: "The following ratings are based on lifetime voting records on gun issues and the results of a questionnaire sent to all Congressional candidates; the NRA assigned a letter grade (with A+ being the highest and F being the lowest)." He might have answered the questionnaire very pro-gun control. Also the high capacity magazine and the waiting period bill were the most important of those 6 by far.
The NRA also factors in Political Affiliation. Democrats almost universally have lower ratings than Republicans, regardless of voting records. I can't remember a Democrat that didn't get the F Rating from the NRA. EDIT: There ranking is based on a survey and past voting record. Basically the NRA also adds their own "opinion" which means if they don't like Democrats they can give them bad ratings no matter what their *actual* stance is. I believe they have time and time again said Obama was trying to kill peoples right to bear arms despite him never even advocating for Gun Control, let alone agreeing to sign it into law.
> Also the high capacity magazine and the waiting period bill were the most important of those 6 by far. I've got no real horse in the race of gun control, but why is keeping a 3-day waiting period on a gun purchase over a 1-day waiting period so important to gun enthusiasts? It seems trivial to me on the outside, what am I missing?
If anyone could clarify the rational behind not implementing the AMBER alert system I'd also be interested to know.
Sanders is a way better choice than Clinton at this point. Edit: changed then to than
It's not even close how much better Sanders would be than Hilary. I can't wait to vote for him, I feel like he's one of the very few that would actually try and represent we people. We sorely need someone like him and you can look at his history and know he isn't a liar and will stand up for what's right.
This comment has been overwritten by an open source script to protect this user's privacy. If you would like to do the same, add the browser extension [TamperMonkey](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/tampermonkey/dhdgffkkebhmkfjojejmpbldmpobfkfo) for Chrome (or [GreaseMonkey](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/greasemonkey/) for Firefox) and add [this open source script](https://greasyfork.org/en/scripts/10380-reddit-overwrite). Then simply click on your username on Reddit, go to the comments tab, and hit the new OVERWRITE button at the top.
I like your optimism. There's no politician that I'd say this about. I guess you could say that I'm jaded. I'm middle-ground - I'm equally disgusted by republicans and democrats. Why should I support Bernie Sanders?
I'll give you three very good reasons. One: [Bernie Sander's top campaign contributers](http://i.imgur.com/GCOVi0J.png) Two: [Legislative history](https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/browse?sponsor=400357) Three: [Powerful speech backed by said history](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsDYAtKlsT4) Edit: Thanks for the gold kind stranger.
I've never seen a better reason to vote for someone than that.
What site is the first one from? I need to see the rest of the 2016 nominees so I can cynically call the winner based on just the money donated.
https://www.opensecrets.org/ Use the search bar on the top right to look up any politician.
Well, Sanders actually identifies himself as an Independent but aligns with Democrats for when it matters.
He's more of a democratic socialist.
In fact, [that's exactly what he refers to himself as](http://nypost.com/2015/04/28/bernie-sanders-to-run-for-president-as-democrat/).
I believe his positions are more or less anti war and anti bulk surveillance, which are two good reasons to vote for him. I think he's also pro NN and against the TPP.
I'm going to switch my party affiliation to Democrat so I can vote for him in the primary here in Florida. I love this man!
As someone who is not dead set on voting for Hillary but who probably might if not convinced otherwise, why? Why is Sanders a "way better choice" than Clinton? I ask sincerely. I want to be informed.
[Compare their donors](http://i.imgur.com/GCOVi0J.png) Credit to /u/Hrodrik for that image.
> Compare their donors Also, note that these are just the larger of his donations. 61% of his donors are individual contributors under $200. No one comes near this.
What was Obama's during the 2008 campaign, if you remember? I seem to recall his high number of small individual donations being a huge talking point in the media.
It was, but the emphasis on that was a good bit of spin, most of his funding came from wall street.
Wow. Bank, bank, bank, bank vs Union, union, union, union
And 20th century Fox for some reason.
Media man. Media is huge in the US of A
Fox News wants Hillary to get the nomination. It will be better for their ratings.
Better than an *actual socialist* in the white house? Ha they'll have a field day. The Fox News Headquarters will look like something out of The Wolf of Wall Street.
Eh, I think they're scared of Sanders. They're concerned he'll actually challenge them.
That, and the 10x difference in the dollar value.
Note the amounts though. $80k from teamsters is not comparable to $700k from Goldman Sachs...
Wow. Just...... Wow Clinton's list is like the who's who of corporate scum. Sanders' list looks like we the people. He will never get elected at this rate...
/r/SandersForPresident We'll win if we keep positive.
Thank you. I know I'm not the only one who subscribed from your link.
Yep. Sanders pledged not to take any donations from big money.
[удалено]
Holy shit.
Jesus.
I just spoke to him and he said he had nothing to do with it.
Seriously saving this to my phone. This is shit we need to remember. Hillary is in the pocket of big banks for sure.
Hillary represents everything negative about the current Obama administration without any real upside. She's extremely pro corporate, pro big government, pro keeping secrets from the public, and about as entrenched in the (completely un-responsive) establishment as one can get. If you think the current direction the country is moving is dandy, voting Hillary is the single best thing you can do to make sure nothing whatsoever changes. Sanders may end up being falling short of his potential, as Obama has, but he's pro net neutrality, pro middle class, and strikes me as a very honest and progressive politician. I would vote for Elizabeth Warren over him, but she's not running. E: This was a quick off the cuff comment, more on Sanders per /u/sjleader: "Also, he supports better trade policies, infrastructure and new clean energy spending, raising taxes on the wealthiest, closing loop holes for wall st banks to avoid taxes-- rewarding people for bringing jobs home not for sending them to china, etc etc. Go to [senate.sanders.gov] (http://www.sanders.senate.gov/) and you can learn about him."
Plus, I don't think Clinton ever met a war she didn't like.
Now that's not true. She was against the Iraq war - after she was for it.
I know this is hyperbole, but if we criticize politicians for owning up to their mistakes and admitting they are now against something they were once for (in a genuine way) we will just have politicians that double down on their bad choices instead for fear of public backlash.
I would agree with you in principle, but I think in this context Clinton was honestly against the war but didn't have the backbone to stand up against it. While that totally makes sense for a politically calculated standpoint, it makes her seem weak when compared to somebody who is willing to stand on principle. Remember that a huge amount of people respected Ron Paul for his honest and principled stances, even if a lot of us didn't agree with his general right-wing platform. Sanders offers a left of center platform it the principles and backbone to stand up for it, something the cowardly democratic party is sorely lacking in. Unfourtunetely in Hillary's case, she's a typical democrat when it comes to spine and principle.
[удалено]
Sanders has some really great ideas, has worked very hard to make things better in America. Plus, he has none of the baggage that Clinton has. Conservatives go a lot less crazy and rabid about Sanders, so he might swing some republican votes in the general that Clinton would not. He's a good candidate, in matters of policy, character and having him as the nominee is good a game strategy for putting a democrat in the White House next year. Check out some of the headlines from the past few years from /r/politics with his name in them to get an idea of what he has done with his career.
Republicans that follow politics at all would much rather have Clinton. Sanders is actually progressive. Look at the list of donors posted above, its ALL unions for him.
this is why Republicans paint unions as the big bad guys. if they can get rid of union power in states they can essentially eliminate political opponents like Bernie and take away the last few voices out there fighting for the working man. as a Wisconsinite, where the middle class has had the biggest declines of wealth in the nation I can tell you that busting up and eliminating unions obviously doesn't work.
Dude, that's the state where Scott... Walker? rules the roost, right? That guy is a certifiable nutjob. Yeah, let's "give up our weekends." Fucking asshat.
Completely disagree. Most Republicans I know have a visceral, gag-inducing reaction to Hillary's name.
The conservative machine goes rabid over whoever is most likely to win. As soon as Sanders looks like he might take the lead, the machine will turn to him and proceed to go rabid.
That's true, but I was talking about the way people have been conditioned over the last few years to clench their buttholes tight enough to create diamonds whenever they the word "Hillary". It's a ubiquitous pavlovian response by now, and it wouldn't affect Sanders at all.
She is chiseled out of the old granite of Washington politics, and will always be pro-war and pro-drug wars and the separation of the two parties through division to keep the status quo and attention off Wall St. etc.
>As someone who is not dead set on voting for Hillary but who probably might if not convinced otherwise, why? Hillary represents corporate interests and big business rather than the working people/average person. >Why is Sanders a "way better choice" than Clinton? I ask sincerely. I want to be informed. If you believe in the equal and fair treatment and payment of employees and all people, and having social services to improve health care, welfare, and education, that is what Sanders is all about. If you support stuff like the TPP, big business, and stuff to move jobs out of the US to save money, and allow big businesses to have even more advantages over average people, go for Hillary.
Damn, that's the sort of shit we used to call republican before republicans stopped being that and just started being irrational obstructionists instead.
Exactly how zootam put it, Clinton toes the corporate line while sanders has repeatedly put put his vote where is mouth is by going against the corporate sponsors wishes and pushing for things that actually benefit "the people"
The problem is, democrats don't look at who is a better choice than Clinton, they look at who is a better choice than any of the republicans and has the best chance of beating whoever they put forward. I look forward to the primaries, but I really don't see much hope for Sanders against the 600 lb gorilla.
If the democratic candidate can motivate enough democrats to actually vote, then they will almost definitely beat any Republican candidate.
That's always true, though. I expect that the right will make some sort of changes in the coming years, because the country as a whole is clearly blue, but the country as a whole does not vote, and people tend to vote more as they age. The right needs to do something to convert several of the current voters or else they will continue to soundly lose presidential elections based on the trends we've been seeing. I doubt that we will see that wave significantly shift local elections for a while, though assuming nothing changes.
That is exactly what people said about Obama
Not exactly. ANY democrat could have beaten ANY republican in that race because of the fallout from Bush. The dems used that opening to safely make history through either of their two easiest options.
I'm talking about the primaries
I hate to break it to you, but Sanders isn't even on the same planet as Obama as far as inspiring speeches go. That's what really drove his candidacy. He didn't have much to run on. He was just really good at getting his views across and inspiring people. I'm not so sure Hillary can win the general, though.
The electoral math heavily favors the democrats this year. Factor in the huge influx of money to fringe GOP candidates that will make the Republican primary a circus freak show and draw their discussion to topics mainstream candidates want to avoid, and I would say whoever wins the Dem primary is a heavy favorite to win. That said, the Democrats could teach the Chicago Cubs a thing or two about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
No, they didn't. Many Dems thought that Obama shouldn't be the final selection until 2016. They were fine with him running though and ultimately believed he would be the nominee one day. They just didn't think it would happen in 2008. Sanders is more comparable to Kucinich.
I'm conflicted. In an ideal world, Sanders would be President. But, I'm more concerned with a Democrat getting into the White House than my perfect Democrat getting in. I'll vote for him in the primaries. And the Democrats have such an advantage in the electoral college that I think almost any Democrat can be elected. But, I don't know if his message can reach the masses through his look, his tone of voice, and his age. And that's stupid, but it's unfortunately a thing you have to consider when talking about the general electorate. Hopefully, he comes off well in the debates. And one thing that's good about Sanders getting in is that it allows other Democrats to get in so there can be a real debate.
If Sanders can beat Clinton, he can certainly beat whatever chump the GOP throws in the ring.
Well, my dream election would be Sanders vs. Paul. It would be the first election where my decision is who is the better candidate rather than who is the least terrible candidate.
> I'm more concerned with a Democrat getting into the White House than my perfect Democrat getting in This, unfortunately, is why so many people conflate a third party vote with a wasted vote. It's a brutal, self- inflicted and perpetuating cycle.
60% people of people didn't vote in the last election. That 60 percent could elect whoever the fuck they wanted if they just voted. It is a huge block. The problem is no one voting so the only people electing our candidates are old people.
/r/politics is at full mast Someone get the american bald eagle boner gif
[удалено]
This just makes me even more 'excited.'
I really hope people will give him a chance and not dismiss him based on his age or race. edit: by race I meant him being a Jew.
Or gender. My gf is a liberal university professor and she flat told me that she intends to vote for Hillary to advance women, regardless of Hillary's or anyone else's positions on the issues.
very moronic reason to vote for someone.
I'm working on it :P
Ask her how much she thinks blacks were advanced with Obama as president.
Well, you could argue that Obama's presidency has forced the rest of us to realize that, well, racism isn't dead. It was something we could pretend we conquered (though any non-white would dispute it), but only looking at the pure vitriol directed at our president convinced many that, nope, racism is still alive and well.
I'm white and would never even consider pretending that we have "conquered" racism, pre or post Obama administration. Anyone with that mindset is very ignorant to the realities of social/civil/racial injustice. Edit: realities, not relatives.
perfect response.
In Poli sci classes with this Swedish girl. Super socialist. Thinks everything America does is so neo con, conservative, repressive etc. Is so excited for Hilary just because she is a woman. I told her Hilary was a conservative, so she called me a hipster. Welcome to election season.
[удалено]
All females in Sweden are actually the same person. Try to keep that quiet, though. We don't need people catching on.
So would she vote for Sarah Palin?
I take it she voted for McCain/Palin then?
I'm a woman (and a feminist) and I would never vote for Hillary. So fear not. Were not all on the woman bandwagon.
I really hope that some time in the future we will have Elizabeth Warren run. She's still got a lot of good work she can do from the Senate right now, though.
2020 would be nice. Unless, yknow, President Sanders is running for reelection that year.
Tell her to vote for Bernie to advance university professors. He used to be one.
Old and white? This is every American president ever except the current one.
I'm sure he's referring to the fact that Bernie Sanders is Jewish. Also, people *may* dismiss Sanders due to the fact that he'd be around 74 (Edit: 75. Guess I forgot what year it was) at the time of inauguration. However, Reagan was nearly 70 when he took office. Hilary Clinton would be 68 by inauguration. It's not like she's much younger. That's really not what most people are paying attention to. I think, and I really hope, that these aren't the things people will use to detract from Sanders' campaigning. There's a *lot* that the right has to dislike about Sanders, and I think that's going to take precedence over his age and religious background.
He will be 75. 79 for a theoretical second term. Reagan was 73 to start his second term which history looks back on as 'alzheimerzy'. Ignoring his age is foolish. Out of 330M Americans how is their not a single one of you in politics over 35 who espouses the same principles? Semi-seriously what are Matt Damon and George Clooney up to next year?
[удалено]
Well, the pool gets a lot smaller when you limit yourself to people who actually have the credentials necessary to make a reasonable campaign for president. If you haven't been in Congress or a Governor, you'd better be a very public, successful business leader, or possibly a war hero. Most of the successful business people with similar values wouldn't hold any sort of office (Buffett, Gates), and there aren't that many very famous war heroes around.
Bernie would be the first Jewish president... if you want to look for a "special sauce" to his candidacy beyond his views.
Oh god. /r/conspiracy would go into overdrive and collectively flip many a tables if Bernie was elected. ...dis gonna b gud.
Thank god. I'm going to be so annoying until election time.
I was thinking the same thing.
Be annoying without shame. Eight years ago, conventional wisdom and the media assured us that Clinton was a lock for the democratic nomination. Young people and social media helped give Obama the boost he needed to contend with Hillary in the early primaries. If Sanders has a strong showing in only a couple of states, the media will be forced to take him seriously. Clinton is about as progressive as Richard Nixon, and it would be a breath of fresh air to have a democratic nominee willing to take on corporations. Unfortunately Obama was a major disappointment to most of us. He talked the talk, but he didn't have the record to prove that he could walk the walk. Sanders is a candidate that will scare the shit out of the thoroughly corrupt establishment.
>Clinton is about as progressive as Richard Nixon Nixon was not that bad of a guy. I would take him over every other republican candidate so far. he loved the environment and was pretty good for civil rights.
He was less of a crook than some recent candidates I could probably name.
~~**EDIT! BernieSanders.com is undergoing a DDOS attack. For those of you who would like to contribute to the senator's campaign,** [**you can do so through this official form.**](https://act.myngp.com/Forms/4906239186820270080)~~ Ladies and gentlemen, [it's time!!!!!!](https://gfycat.com/ScornfulFlashyArctichare) #**/r/SandersForPresident.** We've been working for a over a year (since December, 2013 to be precise) to build up a large, informative, and supportive knowledge-base for all things pertaining to Senator Sanders. We want him in the White House, and if you're reading this and you have ANY interest in learning more about him, his voting history, and the beliefs he stands for, please pay us a visit! I'm attaching several resources to this comment as well - just keep reading. If you want to chip in and help the cause, go ahead and subscribe to the subreddit. Participate as often as possible. Visit multiple times a day, read the comments, and **learn all that you can.** Spread the word far and wide! Bernie DOES have a chance. It's defeatist and flat-out wrong to say anything otherwise - you're just creating a self-fulfilling prophecy if you speak that way. He's honest, authentic, and one of the only people out there standing up for the common men and women of America. But even though it's going to take a lot of work to triumph over Hillary and her endless pockets of Wall Street money, we can still do it. Look at it this way. There is ZERO risk in voting for him in the Primary, because if he earns the Democratic nomination, GREAT! He'll have a great chance at beating the "best" Republican candidate. And if he loses to Hillary, that's too bad, but you can still always just vote for her if you *really* don't want a Republican in the White House. But he won't be a spoiler. He won't cause a Nader Effect. And if you disregard all the stigma and misinformation, and just let his policies and 35 year history do the talking, the choice is obvious. He needs to be the next President of the United States of America. And he can be. * [Link to his official campaign website](https://www.berniesanders.com) * [Link to his OnTheIssues.org page](http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/bernie_sanders.htm#). Don't let people spread misinformation! Learn as much as you can about Senator Sanders and spread the knowledge far and wide. His opponents will make up whatever kind of baseless, slanderous nonsense possible to derail him and his message. The best way to defend against that is to PROVE them wrong, with citations and facts. * [Link to his official 12-step platform](https://berniesanders.com/issues/) * Go to his website and register as a volunteer! * Go to his website and DONATE! * [Link to our "Reddit Campaign," where we will be offering additional information and instruction on how you can help out](https://np.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/31by9a/the_reddit_campaign_for_sanders_2016/) And before anyone asks - No. I do not work for Senator Sanders or his campaign. I am just a regular person like you that has decided it's time to try and fight for the things I believe in. You can too. Join us at /r/SandersForPresident. EDIT: One more thing...... ##**GET HYPED!!!!!!** EDIT x2: Thanks for the gold, truly. But PLEASE. Donate that money to Bernie and his campaign instead! I don't need it. Our future President does :) ~~EDIT x3: You guys gave Bernie's website the hug of death! DON'T KILL BERNIE! HE'S NO GOOD TO US DEAD!~~
I'm not a Democrat or a Republican but I have some serious respect for Sanders. I spent two years working on the hill and routinely saw Sanders getting his own laundry. That sounds trivial, but Sanders doesn't make his unpaid college kid interns get his dirty laundry. It's something small that speaks greatly to his character
[удалено]
If you wish to support him, register Democrat and vote in the primary. I'm Republican and I'm switching parties.
Are you being a smartass or did you seriously see this? (Sorry to ask but Reddit has made me a skeptic, haha.) I like him for several other reasons already but this would be pretty cool. Certainly a far cry from a VP candidate posing with dishes that had already been cleaned in a soup kitchen for publicity...
Yes seriously. I usually took my lunch break at either a pizza joint on the hill or the Georgetown cleaners (which has a badass deli) on the hill. Sanders did his laundry there
He is the only politician I can say I honestly trust to have my best interests in mind. He has my vote!
He'll have mine as well. I'm registered as "no party preference", should I switch to "democrat", or will I have an option to vote for him in the primaries?
Depends on your state.
California Thanks, this is why I asked. I've heard that when you're "no party preference" some candidates aren't available to vote for during primaries.
Yeah California has closed primaries, so I think, (someone correct me if I'm wrong) you'd have to be registered in the DNP.
Closed primaries are undemocratic as fuck.
Isn't it good to have them closed due to potential sabotage?
Yes. If one party's nominee is a lock to win the primary, people of that party can vote for the weakest member of the opposing party.
Which is exactly what Rush Limbaugh tried to do in the Obama-Hillary primaries in 2008. Seeing Obama as the real threat, he marshaled his fat, doughy hate army to vote in every open primary for Hillary.
Yep, this is exactly it. Very easy for an opposing party to vote for the easier candidate to win against if it were open, even to "no party preference".
GCP Grey has a cool video about primaries. http://youtu.be/_95I_1rZiIs
He has a cool video about everything.
Ohio has a closed primary, so as an independent, I would not be able to cast a vote for Senator Sanders. I will be changing my registration to Democrat soon.
[удалено]
Yeah, that and voting for the Patriot Act kinda made me not the biggest Hilldog fan.
Link to his reddit username: /u/SenSanders/
I get paid Thursday. If Bernie Sanders announces his running for the Democrat nomination, I pledge $100 to his campaign. I ask you Reddit to not only hold me to my promise, but make your own as well. Les show the country where the power really is in this country. It's not with the billionaires and their foundations that cater to the ultra elite. It is with the people and the people want /r/SandersForPresident
I have voted in three presidential elections but about a month ago I made my first-ever political contribution, and I gave it to somebody who hadn't even decided on whether he's going to run or not. That's how confident I am that Bernie is my candidate. Here's the deal I'll make. PM me a screenshot of your donation confirmation later this week and I'll throw him another $50. How's that sound?
I've made a note of it. It will be my first political donation as well, but for someone willing to fight to rebuild our bridges I'm willing to make that commitment.
Ron Pauler here. You will need to: 1. Raise tens of millions of dollars from grassroots 2. Don't expect that Bernie will know what to do with millions of dollars in campaign funds just because he's a "good guy." Ron Paul proved totally incompetent in effectively utilizing his millions in 2008 ([see this hilariously cringe-worthy ad](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30yxHqSUva8) and strategically unsound (though slightly more competent)) in 2012. In fact, what you really need is to divert some of those millions to a PAC run by someone competent and unafraid in the grassroots, who will say the hard-hitting things the campaign is afraid to say. Arguably the [most effective Ron Paul 2012 ad](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Rv0Z5SNrF4) (done in response to the newsletter scandal) came not from the campaign but from one of the superPACs. 3. Know your enemy. If you want to have a shot in hell, study Paul's two campaigns, and know that your biggest enemy in defeating Hillary will not be Hillary's campaign or the super PACs, but the media. The media are the ones who will kneecap your candidate if he gains any actual traction. On the Democratic side, you've already seen this with Ralph Nader's campaigns. The Rand Paul grassroots (which I include myself in) is still searching for a decent strategy to prevent the inevitable media knee-capping of Rand. 4. In addition to moderate knee-capping all season long, expect the media to especially screw you over at crucial junctures. Again, see Ron Paul 2012 for examples: one week before the Iowa primary, with Paul #1 in all the Iowa polls, they manufactured the "Santorum surge" out of thin air while suddenly, randomly choosing to obsess over the newsletter "scandal" (without getting into another debate with newsletter trolls, regardless of your opinion on that "scandal," the timing of the media's decision to focus on it was incredibly blatant, given that this was an old scandal that could have been brought up at any fucking time over several decades or any time during the 2012 or 2008 campaign season). 5. ~~Profit!~~ Win! Bonus step: Find an ideologically pure/un-corrupt millionaire/billionaire to help out. In 2012 the largest contributor to Ron Paul's campaign (via superPACs) was Peter Thiel, who donated a few million. Also in 2008 Peter Schiff, a well-known investment manager, acted on his conscience and [sent a personal letter](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:GAy9IIY82F0J:www.dailypaul.com/6092/investment-advisor-peter-schiff-appeals-to-60000-in-e-mail-blast+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us) to all his clients urging them to support Paul. There is still some honest money out there. Go find it!
Finally having a democratic socialist option in the US will be pretty nice (well, apart from the Green Party). Maybe it's time to register for the Democratic Party, even if I find myself left of it on almost every issue, just to have a hand in pushing Sanders in the primaries.
Don't say maybe, just make it happen, baby.
You know what's fun? Go to that sub (of which I was subscriber # like 15, I was in the thread where it got created!) and keep hitting F5. You're getting roughly a new subscriber every second, good times.
Yeah! Fun! I'm gonna be up all night.....
As a Vermonter this makes me super proud... As an American this GETS ME HYPED Bernie is one of the last few good guys down in DC... It is an uphill battle, but we can do it. It will take work and education of the masses, but it can be done... We have to beat the Clinton Machine, and we are gonna do it the Bernie way. Hype train full steam baby! LETS DO THIS Y'ALL
He will get my vote.
Unless you live in Iowa or New Hampshire, you probably won't get the chance.
I live in Iowa! Definitely going to caucus for him. I got a picture with him when he came to stump for Bruce Braley (for all the good it did). I know other people will too.
Same! Can't wait to cast my vote for him.
I seriously doubt he would bother getting in just to get out after two states.
So does every other presidential candidate. And yet that's what happens every. single. time.
Except that's not what happens every time? Hillary v. Obama in 2008 lasted until June.
While in some respects that was a war of attrition, it was apparent immediately after Super Tuesday that Obama had a big enough lead to win in the end. If you recall it didn't really matter that Hillary won a lot of big primaries afterwards because the margins wouldn't have been enough.
SANDERS FOR PRESIDENT!
He's the best man for the job (which means Big Money will be 100% against him).
And that's why Little Money will have to get his back. He doesn't have to outspend the other candidates, he just has to raise a reasonably competitive amount of funds.
^(^little ^money) v BIG MONEY
I wonder if guys like Tim Cook, Elon Musk and others will pitch in?
Maybe. Ben & Jerry's could throw some money in as well.
It would be nice to see Bill Gates and Warren Buffett support him financially.
time for the biggest crowdfunding campaign ever, i'm sure everyone who wants to vote for him could spare <$10 i just think of it as a small price to pay to avoid clinton
Finally an actual option that doesn't make me want to flee the country in terror
I've been living in the United States since 2001, after immigrating from Argentina. This upcoming election, I will finally be enfranchised. As a permanent resident and soon-to-be citizen of the United States of America, I feel strongly about politics and the direction of our country. I like Bernie's stance on many issues, and am planning on donating to his cause and voting for him. Politics is extremely dirty and corporations have WAY too much sway on legislation, and it needs to end. Bernie has my vote. On global warming: * Sanders is a vocal advocate about the ramifications of global warming. In a speech on the Senate floor on July 26, 2012, Sanders addressed claims made by fellow Senator Jim Inhofe: "The bottom line is when Senator Inhofe says global warming is a hoax, he is just dead wrong, according to the vast majority of climate scientists." * * It's sad that it's so valiant for someone to point out science and the facts simply because the opposition is filling their pockets up to defend what is wrong, but, alas, here we are, and Bernie is standing up for the truth, as dramatic as the sounds. That's a lot of commas. On Public Disclosures and Transparency: * Sanders supports the DISCLOSE Act, which would make campaign finances more transparent and ban U.S. corporations controlled by foreign interests from making political expenditures. * * In other words, he's against dirty politics. On BEING A GOOD HUMAN BEING AND ACCEPTING EVERYONE: * Sanders is a social liberal, supporting LGBT rights, same-sex marriage, and pro-choice legislation. * * I know this is a contested issue, but in my personal opinion, this shouldn't even be a question in this day and age. Another point for him.
Do you think Warren endorses him? I love this man but I'm afraid the Clinton campaign machine is going to be too much for anyone on the democrats side
Elizabeth Warren certainly won't endorse Hillary over Bernie; a quick check of each of their backgrounds will tell you that Bernie has been far more consistent in his shouting down Wall Street and corporate America, whereas Hillary actively took money (and still does, if OpenSecrets is to be believed) from Goldman-Sachs to deliver speeches to them that claimed the bankers were just "misunderstood."
Warren co-signed a letter along with many other women in congress asking Clinton to run. Would be weird to not keep backing her at this point.
She'll likely not endorse until someone wins. That's what a lot of party members choose to do.
I'd love to see a Sanders/Warren ticket.
And then they'll win only New England and maybe Oregon and Washington. Yay
Um, Minnesota, hello! *#Mondale*
Good luck getting any swing state to vote for that.
Considering Warren's already endorsed Clinton, I'd say your question has already been answered.
I don't care if he doesn't have the highest chance of winning (and it's up to the people not the media to determine that btw), he shares my views and values and that's what counts. He's got my vote!
Finally, somebody i actually like is running!
Yay somebody who actually cares about the middle class!
#***Liberalism intensifies***
[удалено]
I would a million million million times take Bernie over Clinton. Sadly I am not sure if Bernie can win over the GOP nominees and I would rather have Clinton a million times over any of them at the moment. I feel like I'm choosing between my heart and my brain right now.
[удалено]
Unless Bernie Sanders wins, then you have to try and keep moderate and conservative Dems from jumping ship to the Republicans or sitting out. Bernie Sanders is very popular among Liberal Democrats who are like 40% of the party but we need at least 90% of the party and high turnout to win. If Bernie Sanders wants my vote he has to prove he has electability, 2016 with the Supreme Court in peril and a likely war with Iran if the Republicans win is too important for a protest vote.
Bernie's consistent, populist rhetoric and history of running and winning as an Independent (yet running as a Democrat in this election) would attract all the disenfranchised voters who have given up, and since most people are more politically motivated by who they dislike than who they like, most Democrats would vote against the Republican nominee by voting for Bernie. I'd say those are reasons he has a damn good chance at winning, but only if we pull together for him!
Vote for Bernie in the primaries. If he doesn't win, you can vote for... Hilary. Here is how he wins: * Step 1) Run as a democrat (seems to be happening) * Step 2) Have people actually participate in the primaries. (This requires more than slacktivism and upvotes... like literal votes. * Step 3) Win said primaries. (If people vote for the issues and not the party, this is actually not unreasonable). * Step 4) Be the democratic candidate... which means that the people who vote party lines will see him as the lesser of two evils and vote democrat. We have now won the presidential election with a liberal democratic socialist, we are now going to spend 4 years calling out bullshit and being a general grump. And it will be glorious. Edit: [Here is the link to his campaign page.](https://berniesanders.com/) you can sign up for emails, donations, or ways you are willing to volunteer.
New Hampshire resident here. I fully intend to vote for Sanders come primary time.
This may be one of the greatest moments of my life.
Getting people to vote against Hillary is fucking easy so let's encourage people to do that. She's unlikable. She's in the banks corner. She's a wolf in sheep's clothing and it's not hard to point that out or see. Hell... Conservatives will come out in droves in the open primaries to vote for anyone other than her thinking the only way dems win in 2016 is with her. They don't want her running more than we do. No republican is winning a national election in 2 years. It's not happening. Their voting block is old and dying, and the millenial tidal wave that washed Obama in will be 8 years older with a pretty vocal and active new progressive young generation creeping up behind the Millenials. The electoral map is turning more and more blue. By 2020 Texas will be blue. Attack Hillary on things the GOP won't ever touch her on: Money and it's influence, for one. Stay on message and let the Fox News be Bernie's biggest supporter. We need a message and a candidate who truly speaks for the American people. "Our country's political process is bought and if we don't fix it now it will be irreversible. There's a trillion dollars of unremoveable student loan debt that is an anchor around millions of recent graduates who have no opportunities to return that investment. Our infrastructure is crumbling while we spent trillions on War. Wages have been stagnant and deflated and the cost of living has increased. The top 1% cratered the economy and then saw 99% of all new financial gains since. The middle class is disappearing and the safety net keeping many Americans afloat is under attack from the billionaire class and their wallets and mouthpieces who are exteacting billions from the economy." The candidate is Bernie Sanders.
I think it's pretty clear to every progressive minded voter that Bernie Sanders is by and far the best candidate for president in a generation (or several). Frankly, he is probably the only hope America has of achieving an equal and prosperous future. The country is literally at the brink and the ponzi scheme of crony capitalism is this close to collapsing - it's highly unlikely that it will last another 8 years. The problem is convincing a very large conglomeration of honest, hardworking, but - let's not mince words - simple people who's live are primarily focused on their own lives and their families, who don't travel outside their home states, who don't follow world politics or understand competing economic theories, who are informed by the occasional glance at newspaper stand or what they see for a few hours at night on Fox or MSNBC. They are just getting by and working hard and they don't really care if gay marriage is legal or abortion is illegal or how much a bank bailout costs or just, exactly, where Yemen is on the map. These are the people that need to be motivated - they are worlds apart from /r/politics. Granted, they will understand and probably agree with the message, but it's matter of getting that message to them and getting it there without it being warped by a dozen different pundits who are paid quite a lot of money to make sure people are provided with doubt and fear and uncertainty. I guess what I'm trying to say is, Bernie Sanders might be best possible presidential candidate America can find, but he is going to face the most difficult and uphill battle potentially ever faced by a candidate. Hillary is by far an objectively worse candidate, but she is the definition of a shoe-in. Literally the only thing she has to do to win is not fuck up and let the GOP twist themselves into a meaningless, pasty white knot. The Democratic party's mission is to win an election, nothing more. They aren't interested in the best candidate, they're interested in the candidate that will win. Don't get me wrong - it can be done. But Bernie Sanders and every single person who has any insight into the state of America will have to fit harder than likely any candidate has before to overcome every instinct of a short-sighted, for profit electoral system in order to win. Godspeed to you all.
[удалено]
This means people need to REGISTER TO VOTE. You can't vote in primaries if you're not registered to vote, and if you're not a registered Democrat, you may not be able to vote in the Democratic Primary (depending on your state). Republican, Independent, or Democrat, if you want Bernie Sanders more than Hillary Clinton, you need to register to vote and vote him over her in the primary. THIS is the REAL presidential race.
Please, people, show up to the primaries. The future of our country will be decided there. I'm fully confident that if he wins the primaries, he can win the entire thing, but winning the primary is far from sure. Get out there and take our country back!
I actually just now went online to change my party affiliation from Independent to Democrat for this exact reason. I've voted in every General Election possible since I was eligible, but this will be my first Primary.
I was just reading an interview at random that took place right before the 2012 election and then saw this post. One question/response from that interview stood out as soon as I saw that Sanders would be running. > ***Does openly supporting a political candidate (i.e., Obama) represent a tacit endorsement of all of that politician's positions (drone strikes, indefinite detention of terror suspects, etc.)?*** > > > Of course it does but what the fuck else are you going to do, support the fascist? In a choice between AIDS and the clap, you chose the clap, but wouldn't it be nice to be able to choose between a bowl of ice cream and AIDS instead? If you vote for Obama you are voting for drone strikes, but if you vote for Romney you are voting for war with Iran. You can't ever get what you want, vote or don't but do not delude yourself that somehow the Democrats are the good guys, they are just the less diabolical guys. This is not a new opinion by any means. South Park did it with the Giant Douche vs. Turd Sandwich, Reddit is forever going on about how both parties are the same etc or only have slight differences and there's a lot of truth to it. But I think we've finally got it. **Bernie Sanders is that bowl of ice cream.** Seriously. I don't think I've been able to say that about any presidential candidate in either of the two major parties ever, even in the primaries. Actually, Kucinich was quite good. As I recall my issue with him was that if he actually won he'd just get demolished by the Republicans and none of his great ideas (the kind that the majority of the Democratic Party do not support and the VAST majority of the Republican Party do not support) would be able to take flight. But Bernie Sanders doesn't seem like the type to cater to people, get bowled over by the Republicans and/or members of his own party, and, in the end of the day I feel he could seriously make incredible strides for this country. P.S. I'm not sure why it has to be a choice between ice cream and AIDS...why can't it be a choice between a bowl of ice cream and a bowl of skittles? P.P.S. [Here is the interview.](http://www.undertheradarmag.com/news/the_protest_survey_xiu_xius_jamie_stewart/) The interview is with Jamie Stewart, best known as the vocalist for the band Xiu Xiu. He makes [very uplifting](https://vimeo.com/13780191) and [happy](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=147fALyfxJU) songs. (Protip: Music video for the first is super appropriate for the song but if you're not keen on vomit you might want to just listen to the audio instead.)
I won't wait until Thursday to announce my offer of a political version of the Prisoner's dilemma. I am voting for Bernie Sanders. I will *only* vote for Bernie Sanders. If anyone else wins the primaries, I will write in Bernie Sanders. If you want a Democrat to win the election, best join me in voting for Bernie Sanders.
Voting for a candidate you believe in when one runs (one who actually has a chance of winning, as Bernie does) is a moral imperative. There's no choice *but* to support Bernie for me.
Do you think he is running to raise issues that won't be talked about otherwise, because he thinks he can win, or to placate his constituency?
[He has said](http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/232161-sanders-i-would-run-to-win-in-2016) on a number of occasions that if he runs, [he'll be running to win.](https://www.yahoo.com/autos/s/bernie-sanders-2016-run-to-win-190659577.html) Either you take him at his word or you don't. But I think he's in it for the White House. PS. Aren't you that guy from -- actually, nevermind. I must be mistaken.
He is running to raise issues and win.
Sanders > Hilary