From Richard Winger at Ballot Access News:
This AP story says Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) will decide by March 2015 whether to run for President in 2016. It also says he will decide whether to run for the Democratic nomination, or as an independent.
Presumably Senator Sanders knows that if he runs as an independent he can’t receive primary season matching funds from the federal government, but he can receive them if he says he is seeking the nomination of any party, no matter how small. Also, Sanders probably knows that if he ran as an independent, he would face the challenge of getting on the ballot in all 50 states, whereas the Green Party is currently ballot-qualified in twenty states, including five of the nation’s seven most populous states. Thanks to PoliticalWire for the link.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1c2OfAzDTI
I certainly hope that he runs as an independent or third party candidate. It would make the dialogue far more interesting.
I too will become more active with my state Green Party if Bernie runs. Run Bernie Run!!
At least spell it Zedd. I can live with being nicknamed after a kick-ass Mighty Morphin Power Rangers villain.
They must have you mixed up with my good friend Zed Jiggler.
Why does everyone keep calling me Zed? But in any respect thanks to everyone for all the kind words.
And Zed, thanks for covering non-Libertarian topics. As much as I enjoy reading up on the latest Libertarian infighting, I’d rather hear higher level stories from all third parties and independents. (Or interesting articles on successes, like the DuPage Libertarians, which I’ll be forwarded to other Greens).
This Green would support a Sanders run with the party. He wouldn’t need to join the party for my support: just agree to run on our ballot lines and support our efforts to expand our ballot lines. If he wants to run on ballot lines of other, more established progressive parties (like the Vermont Progressive Party) I’d be okay with that, so long as he chooses the Green line when available. He won’t meet a purity test, but his ideology is aligned and a strong break from the Democrats would be a great sign.
I’m not hopeful that he’ll run with us, though I’m sure the majority of Greens would support him. As much as I like Jill Stein, Sanders would grow the party and bring others into the fold. He already has a strong following. I’m not active right now, but he would certainly activate me and others.
If he miraculously wins the Democrat nomination, I would likely vote for him over a Green. I may not vote for him in the primary, because previous attempts to progress the Dems (Kucinich) have resulted in progressives firmly affixing themselves the blue corporate party.
And aspirations for a Scandinavian democracy are common among Greens.
That’s disgraceful.
Bernie Sanders has already campaigned for Clinton – Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996. In 1996 he supported the re-election of President Clinton rather than backing Ralph Nader. In 2000, he did introduce Ralph Nader at a rally in Vermont, according to Nader’s book “Crashing the Party.” But it is not likely he actually supported Nader in 2000.
I think the latter seems more likely.
I agree – with Martin Pasoli’s comment!
Anyone who campaigns for Clinton should never be taken seriously again after that.
You would probably need more than one example to do such an analysis. Other factors could easily account for the differences between 2.6, 2.9 and 3.0%.
I agree w/ uyou, paulie, socialists have/do run as Greens.I do have an axe to grind with the Greens, but it shouldn’t color my analysis.
And I agree that Sanders is more of a social democrat than a socialist.
Ranking Minority member, that’s the term I was trying to come up with.
I just hope Sanders does not do a Kucinich and run for Pres as a Democrat and then campaign for the nominee. If Sanders campaigns for Clinton, that would be so hypocritical. Terrible thought. Better he doesn’t run and just stays quiet during the campaign.
This seems as good a place as any to make an observation from this year’s Wisconsin campaign.
Three non-Gov/LtGov statewide executive offices on the ballot- which respectively had either all three minor parties (G, C, and L for state treasurer), two minor parties (C and L for secretary of state, including yours truly) and one third party running for attorney general (L). All three races also had competitive normal D and R candidates, who split the wins 2-1. So it’s something of an interesting test case for the idea we’re discussing, with the obvious caveat that Presidential elections are different than statewide elections in many ways.
For state treasurer, the Green got 2.9%, the Libertarian got 2.3%, and the Const. Party got 1.2%.
For secretary of state, I got 2.6% as the Libertarian, and my Const. Party opponent got 1.1%
For attorney general, the only third name on the ballot got 3.0% as a Libertarian.
Analyzing that from a LP perspective, it seems safe to say that “splitting the third party vote” effect is small but definitely real. I predicted from the start that our AG candidate would get the highest vote percentage among the statewides, despite him being one of the least active campaigners, based on being the only third name on the ballot in his race. For every one less minor-party competitor, our nominee picked up about three to four tenths of a percentage point, or about twenty thousand votes.
There’s no literal “being the only other name on the ballot” in a Presidential race, but being the only third name who gets any coverage and achieves nationwide (or effectively nationwide) ballot access, and being the one who is talked about as being excluded from the two-party debates, is better than being one of two or three such candidates.
As for Clark, I don’t want to downplay the effort he put into his campaign or the quality of his candidacy, but the unavoidable elephant in the room is that any other of the 1984-2008 nominees would have probably equally over-performed the baseline if they’d had a billionaire running mate pouring the kind of money David Koch did into the 1980 campaign. If you were to hypothetically “correct” for that factor, Clark probably wouldn’t have done much better than Bergland. And if Anderson had not been running, I think it’s a safe bet that Clark/Koch would have done even better than they did.
We need what the duopoly big parties, the corporations, the media, and military don’t want: a representational parliament kind of gov’t. Then major third parties not only have a chance at winning, but if they achieve (aprox 3% as in other countries), then they have to be represented proportionally IN CONGRESS. I would rather live under such a system, though sometimes, to achieve bigness they form “coalitions” for certain elections – but, that’s okay! At least PPL / WeThePeople are represented, then.
If only the Ferguson Uprising could morph into a DEMAND for Representational Gov’t!!! AND second-choice voting as in IRV!! duh, it makes so much sense for the ppl. But the elitists (so-called) won’t have it.
This is not a true democracy, except we can sound off a lot, freely, call the president a name and we won’t be locked up. But—-is that all democracy is? NOway 🙁
This could be a BEAUTIFUL COUNTRY on many fronts, no poverty, no homelessness, little crime, excellent education–better than what is even considered good at a few schooling environments K-12 and colleges. Fantastic Healthcare for Everyone. The money is here. It’s just not being equitably used: that is the stand that Sen. BERNIE Sanders takes, along with Economists/Professors Robert Reich, Richard D. Wolff, and others of like-mind.
PRAY. And act accordingly, when can! But yes, PRAY :–‘,
jyt
Okay, I understood incorrectly. I just thought I remembered hearing that; I’m not active in Green circles.
Every LP presidential candidate from 1984 to 2008 – seven different tries with six different candidates – came in at between 0.3 and 0.5% of the vote regardless of how strong or weak the other alt candidates were. On either end of that in 1980 and 2012 we had 1.0% (rounded off to the tenth of a percent) – one year had a stronger alt candidate, the other did not. Yes, I do understand the why of the factor you are considering, but the actual evidence is not showing a correlation. I posited other factors in the opposite direction. The evidence seems to show that they basically balance each other out.
Not as far as I know. Do you have any evidence of this?
For starters, that he probably doesn’t want their nomination.
“My understanding is that Nader packed the convention. Is there anything keeping Sanders from getting the Green nomination that way?”
I don’t think that’s the case. Greens were happy to have Nader as their candidate, although some were upset that he didn’t join the party.
The break with Nader came in 2004 when Nader wanted to run a broader-based independent campaign with a Green endorsement. At the same time lesser-evilist Greens gained control of the party apparatus and denied Nader the nomination, despite the reality that most Greens wanted Nader.
julieannayoga,
The facebook page you link to is uplifting, but I hope the people contributing to it follow through on their beliefs and join the Green Party (or some kind of 3rd party) if Sanders declares himself a Democrat. In a situation where the media conglomerates are dominated by the right-wing, Sanders’ rhetoric is surely refreshing. But it’s folly to rely on leaders, especially elites. Grassroots democracy–ordinary people getting involved–is what we need.
“Andy Craig
December 28, 2014 at 6:04 pm
Andy, I think that’s the point he was referencing- that Clark’s 4th place finish was really “better” than Bergland’s 3rd. Which I don’t disagree with, but only because the weight of all the other factors that make up for being a spot lower in the popular vote rankings. Ceteris paribus, 3rd is still better than 4th, but those ceteris aren’t parbius in comparing those two campaigns.”
I was pointing out the reasons as to why Ed Clark had better campaign results than David Bergland, even though Ed Clark’s campaign was over shadowed by John Anderson’s campaign, while David Bergland ran in an election that had a weak field of minor party and independent candidates.
Andy, I think that’s the point he was referencing- that Clark’s 4th place finish was really “better” than Bergland’s 3rd. Which I don’t disagree with, but only because the weight of all the other factors that make up for being a spot lower in the popular vote rankings. Ceteris paribus, 3rd is still better than 4th, but those ceteris aren’t parbius in comparing those two campaigns.
Paul said: “Our strongest run in percentage terms was in 1980, when Anderson did much better. Bergland came in 3rd in 1984, but did poorly in raw votes, percentage and ballot access compared with other presidential tickets we have run since 1980. I don’t think there has been in any correlation in how well LP presidential candidates did in percentage or raw number terms with whether they came in 3rd or not, as counterintuitive as that may seem.”
Ed Clark had the benefit of running with a wealthy VP candidate in David Koch, who kicked in a few million dollars for the campaign out of his own pocket. Ed Clark had also run for Governor of California in the previous election and received 10% of the vote. David Bergland was a nobody who ran for office with little money.
Greens have circulated a Petition for Bernie to run as GREEN. I don’t have the website for that handy, oh wait, here it is: https://www.change.org/p/bernie-sanders-run-for-president-in-2016-as-a-green-party-candidate and can go to https://www.facebook.com/groups/BernieSanders4President/ to inquire. This Facebook page is adamant, even rude about other ideas, re having Bernie run Third Party (Green preferred) or Indy.
I believe Sen. Sanders has alluded to running as a Democrat more than and Indy or third Partier.
This is a more open discussion on Facebook: BERNIE SANDERS 2016–IDEAS WELCOME is the name of the Facebook group… join!!
https://www.facebook.com/groups/BernieSanders2016/
NAMASTE.
My understanding is that Nader packed the convention. Is there anything keeping Sanders from getting the Green nomination that way?
“Doesn’t sound incompatible with Greens to me, although I don’t think he will be interested.”
I don’t know if the national Green party has formally urged Sanders to run as a Green, but from my experiences talking and chatting to Greens, nobody would have a problem with him running.
The problem for Sanders is that if he competes as a Green, he’ll be vetted, and if he engages in Green debates, then he’ll have to explain his actions as a Senator regarding his compromises on the Fed Audit and some of the duopolist positions he’s taken on foreign policy and the military industrial complex. These are not necessarily dealbreakers, because Greens are relatively pragmatic and might be prepared to support someone with Sanders’ notoriety even if they have doubts. Still, Sanders will have to explain himself to people to the left of him, and I’m not sure that’s what he wants to do. I imagine he prefers to debate Democrats and get a few soundbites in where he appears the hero that makes corporatist Dems look silly (a lefty Ron Paul).
For all my doubts about him, I sincerely hope Sanders runs 3rd party. That is what he should do if he’s genuinely sincere about the positions he advocates.
Also, a correlation, as presented above, between LEAST CORRUPTED COUNTRIES and HAPPIEST COUNTRIES/happiest people. AMERICA is considered 17th in least corruption; and AMERICA, by another statistic org, is considered 17th in happiness. That in itself appears as a correlation. The LEAST CORRUPTED COUNTRIES, for the most part, are also the HAPPIEST. Another correlation. See links above.
jyt
In response to Andy Craig and the video interviewing a Swede about the Swedish system: lacking in facts and putting down socialistic programs based on the problems it may have: the problems need to be resolved, yes, but changing the system may not be the answer. There are MANY more problems here with the capitalistic healthcare system, e.g.. However, it does not mean that free enterprise and research/creativity cannot be a part of a government-run system: doctors still have freedoms – with their patients and with their own professional growth as they also work being doctors for society. Please google for the facts. This video appears to be based on this person’s desire to be a capitalist, without considering the society as a whole. As for people “taking advantage” of safety nets worked into the Swedish system, where are his statistics and statements proving this. I have read that most people want to work at jobs meaningful to them, and they don’t want to be on a generous “unemployment benefit” for that long. Sure, a few will mis-use the system, just as thousands use capitalism in oppressive and unethical ways—–way more corruption than in a system like Sweden. There appears to be a correlation between lack of corruption of a government and a solid society where there is little poverty, homelessness, hunger, oppression, exploitation, etc.: Sweden, Finland, Norway, Denmark, Iceland (and New Zealand, faraway from Nordic countries) are amongst the LEAST corrupted governments in the world. America is 19th down on the list, sometimes 17th, but my own info makes me think it should be further down on the list. In Sweden there is not a huge gap between the “rich” and “poor: If people want to get richer than “allowed” via taxations, then they go abroad, as IKEA has done; yet, IKEA’s creativity is revered by Swedes, and was possible at its inception by the very system that Sweden does provide. IKEA also appears to CARE—to not exploit natural resources for its goods (is keen on non-exploitation of resources and caring for the environment).
Here are the links about corruption etc LEAST CORRUPTED GOVERNMENTS.: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/4-least-corrupt-countries-world-115010817.html and: http://news.yahoo.com/most-least-corrupt-countries-world-040948291–business.html
More info about the Swedish / NORDIC MODEL: http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2014/0511/Nordic-cuddly-capitalism-Utopia-no.-But-a-global-model-for-equity
I would rather see a whole society being in a “safety net” situation as in Sweden than my going after huge profits with some company I may have. There are plenty of other countries for me to capitalize with if I need. BUT JUST HOW MUCH DOES ANYONE REALLY NEED? I think that IKEA was demanded elsewhere more than the owner wanting more moolah. IKEA’s products, low-cost and fairly good, give solace to many people worldwide. This does not mean to dismantle the Swedish system!!
HAPPIEST COUNTRIES: http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/05/10/happiest-countries-in-world/8912123/
jyt
Doesn’t sound incompatible with Greens to me, although I don’t think he will be interested.
I’ll have to argue about Scandinavia some other time.
On Sanders running: If he runs 3rd party, I’ll take an interest. Hopefully he will. But as others have noted, if he does run it will most likely be as a Democrat. Which pretty much means he’ll contest Iowa and New Hampshire and drop out.
On Sanders being a “socialist”, no not really. Social democrat, sure. Socialists want to socialize banking and the means of production. They favor a cooperative-based economy. Social democrats tend to maintain capitalist structures and fund public services and redistribute income via Keynesian economics. Scandinavian nations are social democratic, not socialist.
Do Scandinavian nations have better government than the USA? Yes, of course they do. They have mutli-party represenative systems. Their militaries are relatively modest. They have single payer health care, inexpensive or free higher education, superior choice and freedom in K-12 eduction. Unions are on the retreat there as everywhere else, but they remain relatively strong, which leads to more equitable remuneration on average than you get in the USA. The media there does a better job overseeing their government, no doubt because governments of smaller scale are easier to oversee.
Sanders is not somebody who has made foreign policy, civil liberties, or even anti-corruption a serious priority. His main message has always been a crusader against free-market capitalism, bashing the idea of profits, having the state take over provision of major goods and services, etc.
Yeah, I somehow got on one of his mailing lists for a while, and every email he sent me was basically some iteration of those themes. He virtually never mentioned foreign policy, or any other topic except those that involved railing against the “horrors” of an unregulated market.
I think there’s value in breaking up the duopoly aside from ideology per se. Ideology is important to me, but so is structure. The establishment parties are so closely intertwined with other aspects of the establishment that I see no hope for ever rescuing them. It sounds like taking over the mafia or the KKK to me – the brands are way too poisoned. If you want to have a non-racist fraternal society devoted to charity work and outdoor fun activities, don’t call it the Ku Klux Klan, and if you want a party that represents something other than corporatism, warmongering, domestic espionage, police state at home and abroad, mixing church and state, etc., don’t call it the Republican Party.
Oh, I agree that attempts to reform either of the two major parties are highly unlikely to succeed. I’m just saying that IF they somehow did succeed, I wouldn’t refuse to support them just because of the name. I remember back in ’08, when Ron Paul first began to gain popularity, there were a few people who said that even though they agreed with him on almost every issue, they wouldn’t vote for him, just because he called himself a Republican. That seemed silly to me then, and it still does now. In fact, I don’t see how that’s any different than voting for an obviously non-libertarian candidate (say, Sonny Landham) just because he somehow managed to get on the LP’s ballot line. For me, principle trumps party every time.
Setting aside the white-supremacist troll theory, the reality is that the Nordic countries are neither as socialist nor as well-performing on the statistics as the myth “Socialism works in Sweden!” would have you believe. You’re right that Sanders continuously points to that as his model, which shows me he’s either ignorant or lying, neither of which says anything positive about him.
The reality is that Scandinavian welfare states are not substantively different than the “mixed system” model we already have in the US. You can not articulate any standard for “democratic socialist” that qualitatively separates Sweden from the US, and in fact by some measures Scandinavian countries rank higher up on indices of economic freedom, as does Canada, which is the other mythical successful “socialist” nation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbTEzhaXZ3w
Regarding Sen. Bernie Sanders being a “socialist”: it needs to be clarified what he means by “socialist”, which he has clarified–in words and in his actions: He has stated that he is a “socialist” along the lines of “democratic socialism” in Scandinavian/Nordic countries such as Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Finland, and Scandinavia. Also, he has NEVER said he wants “more government”; rather, he has stated that it depends on what government DOES more than its size, that matters. If government has the “right goals” reflective of The People and basic needs (healthcare, transportation systems, education, etc.), and is efficiently run, then government does not necessarily have to be “big”, but “big” does not mean it can’t be good and for the Public Good.
I comment that: there are differing kinds of “socialism”, and if, in these discussions you are adamantly against “socialism”, then indicate what kind and why it is “bad” or “good”. Totalitarian socialism is not so humane. But a “democratic socialism” inclusive of free-enterprise, is a solid society, as proven in Scandinavia (not perfect, but solid and essentially clear of hunger, homelessness, no-healthcare, bad education and steep tuitions, due to equally sharing.)
Back to Bernie Sanders: He feels that the “Nordic models” may teach us something; and, most all developed countries have single-payer/yes-gov’t-run Healthcare Systems–which work, not without problems, but WITH A LOT LESS PROBLEMS THAN OUR capitalistic system has!! Bernie Sanders is for Single-Payer, as most Americans and many nurse and doctors organizations are, as well! AND, it will save EVERYONE involved, money….can do the research, as Bernie Sanders has done.
IF YOU “FRIEND” Bernie Sanders on his Facebook sites, you will receive direct quotes and visuals and videos from him on your own Facebook site: truly informative! He tells it like it is. Now he does walk the talk of his kind of “socialism”: Vermont is not much of a failure, is it: in fact, is quite successful in environmental clean-up, renewable energy, etc., with Bernie’s blessing. Many other successes as well…but do the research instead of merely forming opinions without such: http://www.Sanders.Senate.gov and search his name “Bernie” on Facebook and Twitter… also “Sanders” on Facebook and Twitter. “Friend” him for info…maybe merely “Liking” him will get you info as well (?).
Here is an article about “The Nordic Way” – which points out that the Scandinavian countries can teach us something: http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2014/0511/Nordic-cuddly-capitalism-Utopia-no.-But-a-global-model-for-equity
As for “Libertarianism” – the question remains: what is “freedom”? How much “community” do you want (which can be smothering); and how much “individualism” do you want (which can be alienating”?) Where is the balance? It has been proven that a sense of community and localization is healthy: http://www.TheEconomicsOfHappiness.org – and from my own experience, needs to happen more in America. The right amount of “community” can actually nurture “individual growth” (see the article “The Nordic Way”, above.) The lack of real “community” is why I, in Los Angeles, have sought the company of cultures that are more “community”-oriented and relate to one another much more meaningfully than “busy” Americans. Yet, America provides opportunity for individual growth. Both are important, but not at the expense of thinking about our Fellow Man too.
I believe Sen. Bernie Sanders has found and tends to find that balance… He is for People running the country, not corporations, and not government, either, except by informed persuasion of ThePeople—the way a true democracy should work. Also, Richard Wolff, economist, is along these lines—democracy in the workplace, WORKER-owned businesses, not CORPORATE and/or GOVERNMENT-owned businesses (as some “socialism” has done). The People shine!!
Sen. Sanders is a good listener as well, albeit he got a little feisty when he was questioned about Israel/Palestine. He has become more neutral in recent months, b.t.w., standing for a logical peaceful settlement in that region: see his foreign policy page at his Senate website… here it is again: http://www.Sanders.Senate.gov
NAMASTE, Happy ReNew Year!! 🙂
Good points on both of those. I guess he won’t be running then, and I guess that’s good.
re: Sanders accepting a cushy Senate committee chairmanship instead of running for President, at all, I can’t help but think that’s what this is all about, and that if it is then they will probably succeed in keeping him out of the race: Yes, he’d be Ranking Member and not Chair not that the Dems are in the minority, but that’s still worth quite a lot on a major committee.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/08/13/1321399/-Bernie-Sanders-to-Chair-Senate-Budget-Committee
re: good progressives that we can work with, I agree with the general idea, but I don’t think Sanders is an example of one. Nader would be much closer, actually. Sanders is not somebody who has made foreign policy, civil liberties, or even anti-corruption a serious priority. His main message has always been a crusader against free-market capitalism, bashing the idea of profits, having the state take over provision of major goods and services, etc.- that’s the focus of his message and would be the heart of any Sanders for President campaign. I do not see that as something libertarians should feel positive about. “Anti-corporatist” rhetoric is an easy mask for authoritarian socialist economic policy, the kind of policies that we as libertarians know full well would actually make the problem of corrupt corporatism, regulatory capture, and rent-seeking all worse, not better. Just because a socialist poses as anti-corporatist, doesn’t mean we should view them as an actual ally against “corporatism” (which is rapidly becoming a term so overused it’s losing its meaning, anyway).
Jill: Good luck with the store and newsletter.
Agreed on both points.
I’m not convinced Nader, nazis or communists are sincere. Regarding Nader see http://realchange.org/nader.htm . Nazi and communist parties essentially function as tiny political cults used for the personal financial and sexual gratification of their leadership cliques and are crawling with FBI and other government informants and agents, con artists, and mentally ill individuals acting out personal issues. Even so, the communist parties often produce useful articles on many issues. Luckily they are all tiny sects, even in the alt party world, so there’s no danger of them seizing any real world power any time soon. The fascists and commies I am far more concerned about are the crypto (concealed) kind working within the establishment.
He’s less than ideal, but bucks the establishment more than most.
I still don’t think that is necessarily true. More strong alt candidates means more coverage of such candidates, some of which will include us. It means more people paying attention and researching who these other candidates are, watching alt debates, etc. It means more people not voting straight party ticket, so some of our downticket candidates can benefit even when our presidential ticket doesn’t. It means more people looking to register to vote as something other than the coke and pepsi parties. And so on.
While I agree that there are issues on which he would be worse than the establishment, I think there are actually more issues where he would be significantly better. The same would hold true of the larger alt parties and many of the smaller ones.
If you recall the founding 4 points of the Campaign for Liberty, and Nader, McKinney and Baldwin coming together with Ron Paul to support them (and Barr backing out in a snit over being on stage with “people like Cynthia McKinney”) those are the sorts of things I think we can unite around – https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2008/09/libertarians-left-out-of-third-party-consensus-anti-war-pro-privacy-anti-debt-anti-fed/ and other related issues such as opposition to the drug war and to police militarization – the Constitution, Libertarian and Green parties are all better than the establishment on these issues, and Sanders probably is as well.
Jed, you do a great job! Thank you so much.
I started to say I’ll try to help more in 2015, but I’m hoping tro open my Etsy store is January. Some people say that it might be months before I sell anything, but I’ve sold over 20 bracelets in a month without the Internet’s help (over $450 worth), so perhaps my marketing experience with my insurance business will give me an advantage. All I can say if that I’m a much happier and better-centered person when I have a creative outlet.
Also, I’ve been asked to produce a Los Angeles County newsletter, and I’m hoping to have the first issue out in January.
So, in other words, Jed, I reallty, really appreciate what you do here. I love IPR and hope to always be a part of it, but being a little less involved this year has been good for me.
Jed:
langa:
I’m in between these extremes.
I think there’s value in breaking up the duopoly aside from ideology per se. Ideology is important to me, but so is structure. The establishment parties are so closely intertwined with other aspects of the establishment that I see no hope for ever rescuing them. It sounds like taking over the mafia or the KKK to me – the brands are way too poisoned. If you want to have a non-racist fraternal society devoted to charity work and outdoor fun activities, don’t call it the Ku Klux Klan, and if you want a party that represents something other than corporatism, warmongering, domestic espionage, police state at home and abroad, mixing church and state, etc., don’t call it the Republican Party.
I see Jed got it. Thank you again!
Awesome! Keep up the great work, and thank you!
Lesiak had 1192, so you have him within your sights 🙂
After that I think there is only me (it’s not as easy for me to check as when I was an admin). I’m currently at just under 4k posted as paulie plus 1260 as cannoli. I hope you’ll stay at it long enough to pass me, although I am not giving up myself just yet.
I have to agree with many of the comments above; my first thught when seeing this article was that Sanders should run on the Green Party (especially in the Green Mountain State).
He certainly would be a stronger candidate than Jill Stein was and would give the GP another shot at legitimacy. Also why the GP does not do so well in the vast red swatch of the US. it does very well here in the Northeast.
Paulie is correct that Hawkins ran as as a socialist, basically a liberal alternative to coportist Cuomo for left-leaning progressive Democrats.
I see it as a natural fit.
Thanks to Jed for all his great work on IPR.
The Greens are not socialist per se, but many socialists have run as Greens. Camejo and Hawkins come to mind, but I’m sure there are many others. Anyone who is willing to caucus as a Democrat in congress or potentially run for the Democratic nomination has no room to criticize the Greens for not being socialist enough for him to run with them. I agree he won’t do it, but not because they are too capitalistic – more likely it’s because they don’t have enough to offer him to make it worth affiliating with them, and because he won’t buck the system and deal with the wrath of the Democrats. Nader lost a lot of friends and supporters and faced a lot of abuse after 2000, and Sanders, as a sitting Senator, does not want or need that aimed at him.
Agreed there as well. VPP sound pissed, too. I’ve been meaning to write that up.
I don’t see much chance of Sanders running as anything other than a Democrat.
I agree with the commentor that noted that in the article Sanders makes it pretty clear that he is not going to run. If he does I also think it will be as a Democrat. last year around this time, when Sanders first started talking abt running for Pres in 2016 he was making a lot more noise about running as an independent. But earlier this year he almost completely dropped any talk of running as an independent. I also think his relentless campaigning in Iowa over the last few months, also indicates to me that if he runs it will be as a Democrat.
I don’t think Sanders will run. I hate to say it, but I’ll wager a half penny the Democratic establishment has offered him a better slot in some Senatorial committee.
If Sanders ran, and did not run as a Democrat, he would never in a million years run as a Green. If he was interested in the Greens he has had 20, 25 years to show interest in the Greens. Sanders sees himself as a democratic socialist. The Green Party in the US is not a sociialist party at all.And Marxist Leninist sectlettes like the Party for Socialism and Liberation, Workers World are nothing Sanders would ever take seriously.
He was associated with the Liberty Union in Vermont, but he has distanced himself from the party, and has been more closely associated with the Vermont Progressive Party. I would say he has had a somewhat negative role with the Progressive Party in that he has encouraged them to take a kinder gentler attitude toward the Democrats. But I think the Democrat Governor, who the Progressive Party made a point of not running a Progressive for Governor. I think that will change because Governor Shumlin backed of a single payer health care system in the state.
And let me add my thanks to Jed for his great ongoing work here at IPR.
I am a libertarian, a Libertarian, and an anti-duopolist not at all, really – I just don’t think a 2 party system will ever give us freedom. That said, I disagree with the assessment offered of Bernie Sanders. From the standpoint of reality, the first concern of a libertarian should be to determine the system of government we live under – corporatism. The second concern should be to determine the greatest evil of that system – foreign policy. Addressing those two concerns is a positive thing, whatever one happens to think after that. That doesn’t mean I like Bernie Sanders more than a libertarian, of course, and I wouldn’t support him over one, but it means I have generally positive feelings about him, not negative.
As far as the debates, they excluded (from all but the first) a stalwart Democrat, who occupied his Senate seat as a Democrat, and who achieved far more in the Senate than Sanders, after he made the unpardonable error of speaking the truth about Hillary Clinton (I think the line was “that bitch is crazy.”) If they want Sanders out, they’ll get him out.
Thank you Zed for all your fine effort.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7Yp2L6c2KM
Thank you Zed for all your fine effort. I read this site daily and your articles make it more interesting.
Congrats on the 1000 articles though. I appreciate that you bring non-LP news to the Report, we do need a balance of that even I’m fine with us being LP-centric.
re: being anti-two-party over being libertarian, and being willing to vote for an awful authoritarian if they’re sincere about it, I can’t help but think of the Milton Friedman quip about Ralph Nader: “I have no doubt of his sincerity, I just happen to think that sincerity is a much overrated virtue.” followed by an explanation of all the reasons Nader was wrong on this, that, and the other issue.
The American Nazi Party is sincere. The Communists are sincere. That Workers World Party and Constitution Party are both sincere. I’d vote for a run-of-the-mill corrupt establishment Republicrat over them any day. And anyway, Sanders *is* just another run-of-the-mill corrupt establishment Republicrat.
I can honestly say I’m an anti-duopolist first and a libertarian second.
Not me. In fact, I don’t really care about party labels at all. I am almost exclusively interested in reducing the size and scope of the state, and if, by some miracle, the Democrats and/or Republicans suddenly started running genuinely libertarian candidates, I would be happy to support them, just like I did in the case of Ron Paul.
BTW by my count this my 1,000th article at IPR. w00t
Wow, that’s quite impressive. I’m sure I’m not alone in saying that all the hard work you do around here is greatly appreciated.
I agree with your assessment, Dave. Whatever rules they might try to trot out would easily be defeated by formally becoming a Democrat, which I’m sure he would do the same day he announces his candidacy if he runs as a Dem. I agree his negative comments about being a spoiler make it very unlikely that he will run independent or third party.
He already is, for all intents and purposes, a Democratic Senator. He’s a member of the Democratic caucus in the Senate. In his time in the House, he only faced two token Democratic nominees in five elections, and for US Senate he’s never had a Democratic opponent on the ballot. Formally dropping the (I) and replacing it with a (D) would just make it official.
I actually do think Sanders will run, but as a Democrat. But what will be interesting is to see if he’s invited to the primary debates. Normally I’d say ye,s but since he’s an independent, there might be some obscure rule the establishment can trot out to make it so that he can’t be at the debates or win any delegates. IIRC, Obama’s challengers won some delegates in 2012 but were deemed ineligible to receive them. The same holds true of Lyndon LaRouche in 96, I believe. Now Sanders helps the Dems in the senate, so I do believe they’ll play nice and let him have his brief moment. But if he ever seems to be a serious threat to the nomination, I imagine we’d begin to see certain challenges to him reviving delegates.
He also seems very concerned at not being seen as a “spoiler” so I fully expect him to run as a Democrat and drop out after the first few primaries. He’ll probably be happy at being able to represent his ideology in a few nationally televised debate, and in return will play ball as it were.
I can honestly say I’m an anti-duopolist first and a libertarian second. Government is inherently evil, but a government that stands for nothing other than the whims of its master financiers is far and away more dangerous than all but the most brutal of dictatorships. I would vote for someone I disagreed with on everything in a heartbeat if I knew that he or she firmly believed such, and wasn’t taking positions just to please donors & public opinion. Sadly, we have a government of puppets, by the puppet masters, and for nothing and no one. This is the reason why I will never vote for a Republican or Democrat again, unless & until we have five strong parties, all with representation in Congress, in the United States.
I hope Sen. Sanders runs outside of the two parties and does well, and that a good libertarian does the same and does even better.
BTW by my count this my 1,000th article at IPR. w00t
I don’t think somebody is necessarily better than the Republicans and Democrats, just because he’s not one. A world in which Sanders’ message has more influence, or in which god forbid he holds actual power, would be a much worse world than even establishment Republicans and Democrats would give us. Sanders is no noble “opponent to the corporatist agenda”- he is a bigger enemy of liberty than the mainstream of either major party, an unapologetic self-proclaimed socialist whose entire agenda is about growing the size and scope of state power in every possible sphere, which in my book is barely half a step above an unapologetic self-proclaimed fascist.
What we should “wish” is beside the point, since we have no say in who other parties nominate. But the fact remains that a strong non-LP alternative candidate isn’t good for the LP nominee, and a strong non-libertarian alternative candidate isn’t good for libertarianism.
Libertarians should not wish against other parties nominating strong candidates. Unless Sanders runs as a Democrat or doesn’t run, the attitude should be “we disagree with the Senator’s philosophy of governance, but we welcome alternatives to the establishment’s monopoly on power and look forward to a spirited debate between [our nominee] and Senator Sanders on the issues that matter most to the American people”.
My hope for 2016 is that the Libertarians, Greens, and other alternative parties can nominate strong candidates that will promote their party’s message and reach record numbers of disaffected voters. Obviously I hope a libertarian prevails in the end, but welcome all opposition to the corporatist dogma.
I agree with your point about Clark’s 4th vs. Bergland’s 3rd. But it was Anderson’s strong performance in 1980, just like Nader’s and Perot’s in their elections, that prevented the LP from being the main alternative candidacy in the election, and probably held Clark/Koch below what they would have got if Anderson had not been running.
While it’s true that a 4th place candidate in one year can get more votes and better percentage than a 3rd place candidate in another year, I don’t think it’s true that 3rd vs. 4th is meaningless. When we can’t even claim to bigger than the Greens, or Perot, or an Anderson type, then it hurts the growth and perception of the LP. It might be said somewhat sarcastically and tongue-in-cheek, but “third-largest political party” has some value to it. When people get fed up with one of the major parties, we want the LP to be the first alternative they consider.
What the AP article says to me is that he is not running.
“…Sanders says he wouldn’t run just to nudge the debate to the left.
“I don’t want to do it unless I can do it well,” he told The Associated Press. “I don’t want to do it unless we can win this thing.” ”
This Bloomberg piece gives me the same impression. Not his words but his nonverbal cues.
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/features/2014-12-19/what-kind-of-revolutionary-exactly-is-bernie-sanders
Not running as a Democrat, a Green, or an indy. And if we take Elizabeth Warren at her word, then that leaves only Martin O’Malley as the option from the Democratic establishment’s left.
I think, post-Nader, the Greens have been pretty resistant to nominating from outside. McKinney had to actually join and say she was a Green first.
I’m not sure that I agree that how well LP candidates do is very dependent on what other alt candidates run. Our strongest run in percentage terms was in 1980, when Anderson did much better. Bergland came in 3rd in 1984, but did poorly in raw votes, percentage and ballot access compared with other presidential tickets we have run since 1980. I don’t think there has been in any correlation in how well LP presidential candidates did in percentage or raw number terms with whether they came in 3rd or not, as counterintuitive as that may seem.
Any thoughts on how the Green Party might receive him seeking their nomination? There are also several one-or-two state ballot qualified left-wing parties that he could pick up- Liberty Union (VT), Peace and Freedom, Progressive, Socialism and Liberation, etc. I’d have to refer to the Winger databases to get an exact figure, but I imagine a coalition of the non-Green minor left-wing parties could give him a decent roster of states.
Interesting speculation, anyway, but it’s moot since he’ll be running as a Democrat and has been fairly explicit about that. When he does, he’ll also probably formally, finally, officially join the Democratic party. As a Libertarian, I find this the better scenario, not just because Sanders is an awful socialist, but because his populism would heavily eat into the non-D/R vote. Like Perot and Anderson and Nader before him, one of the casualties of his campaign would almost certainly be any hope the LP has for a third-or-better finish in the popular vote.