2020- a hypothetical.

[The Romulan Republic]

Apologies if this is the wrong forum for such a question. Move if applicable.

Anyway, this is based off a discussion my Mum and I had yesterday while watching the Bernie vs. Cruz debate on health care. The two were the runners-up in last year's primaries, and I'd bet my ass Cruz at least means to run again some day, while lots of people want Bernie to run but he refuses to comment on it.

The question is: should Bernie Sanders seek the Democratic nomination again? And if he did, could he get it?

There's the obvious age objection (which raises the possibility of him choosing to serve only one term if elected). However, what I'm wondering is: would Bernie Sanders be electable if he made a bid in 2020?

Pros: He's probably the highest profile and most popular elected official on the Democrats' side right now (even if technically an independent). Unlike when he started out last time, he has huge (or is that yuuuge? ) nation-wide name recognition, and their is unlikely to be a single "foregone conclusion" candidate on Clinton's level that the party machinery is united behind like last time (unless Michelle Obama changes her mind about running, anyway). Also, Clinton's defeat could be seen as a validation of Bernie's anti-establishment stance last election.

Cons: Age, plus the fact that Bernie has alienated some of his supporters from last time by being too sane to go "Bernie or Bust". Also, its questionable how much of his support was a backlash against Clinton specifically, people just seeking an "anti-Clinton" option.

My thought is he'd probably have a good shot, if he could maintain his former coalition while even slightly expanding it, but that given his age, he should probably only throw his hat in the ring if their is no other strong progressive candidate who would be able to represent a similar platform.

Any major arguments I'm missing? Thoughts?

[The Romulan Republic]

This, of course, isn't really even getting to the question of General Election electability, which I won't venture a prediction on because it depends on a lot of variables, most notably just how badly Trump fucks up vs. just how much the Republicans manage to erode what's left of democracy in America (in other words, weather an actual competitive election is even going to happen).

[Simon_Jester]

If his health holds out well, I'd say we could do worse in a candidate. Quite arguably, we did do worse. But it may well also be that we can do better, or that a dark horse candidate will emerge over the next four years. There are almost certainly Democrats who can beat him. Even if the centrist party machine collapses into a discredited heap of rubble, that remains true, if only because there are probably people who can steal a lot of his populist/progressive cred while appealing to a broader base.

Again, wild cards are possible. In February 2005, if you'd asked me to predict the next (D) nominee, I would never in a zillion tries have guessed Obama.

[The Romulan Republic]

Quite true.

As I said, he should probably only join in if their is not another, younger progressive who could mount a credible campaign while promoting a similar platform.

If such a candidate emerges, then he would likely do better to endorse them (Sanders' endorsement will likely be essential for any progressive seeking the nomination) and throw his support base and fund-raising machine behind them.

[K. A. Pital]

If the dude is still alive, he has to concentrate on making someone younger than him elected (sorry but that's the hard truth - although I don't know what will remain from the "Democratic party" over the next 4 years, if there's gonna be splits and factions and stuff). Obama lasted this long also because he didn't die in the process of being President. It is something to always have in mind.

If the younger type can be influenced, he could be Cardinal Richelieu for a while (=while still alive).

[The Romulan Republic]

Sanders still seems perfectly healthy and energetic at present, and he's hardly the oldest person to ever hold high office- or even run a country.

Obviously any campaign would be contingent on the candidate remaining physically fit to run.

I did mention the possibility of him running only for one term, as well.

Edit: All that said, I'd actually prefer someone younger (even if that sounds like age discrimination), and I suspect Sanders would too, but it would depend on weather their was another progressive who could run a viable campaign willing to enter the race. Remember that support from progressives only really coalesced behind Bernie last time when it became clear that Warren wouldn't run, and when it looked like Clinton was more or less a foregone conclusion.

[FaxModem1]

Sanders would be better suited to being the kingmaker than the king, acting as a founder of a Sanders Democrat movement or some such thing, with some sort of progressive whippersnapper following his lead and being his champion. Sanders just has to find someone who will follow his lead.

[Simon_Jester]

Sanders still seems perfectly healthy and energetic at present, and he's hardly the oldest person to ever hold high office- or even run a country.

Yes, but seventy-nine is very old, and things can go wrong in a hurry. Even if he runs, people will be wondering "what if he keels over dead two years into his term?" Of course, Trumpolini is only five years younger than he is.

But it would honestly be a good idea to run someone in their forties or fifties against Trump. Among other things because it'd be helpful to get out the youth vote in a really big way, which would help to offset voter suppression. I'm not saying Sanders would be actively bad at the youth vote, but I'm pretty sure a better candidate could be found.

[And before anyone says "the youth vote got burned by Obama..." the youth vote of 2020 is a completely different youth demographic than that of 2008. People who were 18 in 2008 will be 30 in 2020, borderline aging out of the 'youth' pool.

The youth voters of 2020 will be people who went to grade school during the Obama administration and for whom he is the prototypical image of an American president... while Trump was president during or shortly after their college years.

Edit: All that said, I'd actually prefer someone younger (even if that sounds like age discrimination)...

Some degree of age discrimination against eighty year old men is going to be inevitable as long as human beings remain mortal creatures. I don't question his competence, only his ability to physically survive the stresses of the office if he doesn't turn out to be a lot more spry than I thought.

...and I suspect Sanders would too, but it would depend on weather their was another progressive who could run a viable campaign willing to enter the race. Remember that support from progressives only really coalesced behind Bernie last time when it became clear that Warren wouldn't run, and when it looked like Clinton was more or less a foregone conclusion.

I suspect a lot of people who might have considered a 2016 presidential bid decided not to climb into the ring against Hillary Clinton, perceiving (probably correctly) that the deck was hopelessly stacked against them. Clinton HAD spent like twenty years canvassing the party leadership to support her eventual presidential big, and she would have been a shoo-in for it in 2008 if Obama hadn't come in out of left field looking young and hope-driven like JFK (only with more melanin and fidelity).

Warren is... not young, but young-ER than Sanders (or, for that matter, Trumpolini, if only by a little). I wouldn't be worried about her age; she's a possible contender.

[Flagg]

If Sanders runs again Trump will win again. Especially if Senator Crazy Hair is the nominee because the campaign will just be 2 old white fuckers who refuse to compromise and have weird hair screaming at each other in which case the dumb children American voters will go with the devil they know.

[The Romulan Republic]

Really, the point of this thread was more "Could he win the nomination?" than "Should he be the nominee?".

Still, I would be very surprised if after four years of Trump's version of "leadership", he could beat any Democrat in a fair race. The problem is we need someone who can inspire the turnout to overcome the inevitable mass voter suppression, plus the fact that the EC favours Republicans.

Although, I'm curious- are you suggesting that the Democratic Party should run someone non-white? Because if that's the thinking, Corey Booker's probably your bet. If anyone is the centre establishment's darling next time around, it'll be him. Younger, charismatic, African American centrist- they'll be banking on him to be Obama Mk II, I'm betting.

I'm not saying that's a good call, but their it is.

[Crazedwraith]

Still, I would be very surprised if after four years of Trump's version of "leadership", he could beat any Democrat in a fair race. .

Depends how much things go badly for his voters and how much he can spin their anger at other targets.

[Flagg]

Really, the point of this thread was more "Could he win the nomination?" than "Should he be the nominee?".

Still, I would be very surprised if after four years of Trump's version of "leadership", he could beat any Democrat in a fair race. The problem is we need someone who can inspire the turnout to overcome the inevitable mass voter suppression, plus the fact that the EC favours Republicans.

Although, I'm curious- are you suggesting that the Democratic Party should run someone non-white? Because if that's the thinking, Corey Booker's probably your bet. If anyone is the centre establishment's darling next time around, it'll be him. Younger, charismatic, African American centrist- they'll be banking on him to be Obama Mk II, I'm betting.

I'm not saying that's a good call, but their it is.

No, I'm saying they shouldn't nominate Sanders because he's a no-compromise old white guy with crazy hair who doesn't seem to be able to communicate without screaming.

[The Romulan Republic]

I've learned from experience that the fastest way to derail a thread is to debate Sanders' merits with you, so let's just agree to disagree, M'kay?

[Lagmonster]

If you ask if someone *could* win a popularity contest, and someone else responds that your candidate is a more unlikeable old coot than the unlikeable old coot who failed to beat an even more unlikeable old coot, the answer you should be inferring is "no, keep that person the fuck away from the contest".

[Simon_Jester]

Certainly that would be the answer of the person who does not like the old coot.

The salient question is, how many more like this disliker of the old coot are there?

[Lagmonster]

I don't think it matters in American politics anymore. The minute a politician adopts the mantle of "the guy who lost to the loser", that's the label that sticks.

Aside from that, he's forever saddled with being a participant in what was a vile election. Half the liberals who see the guy are going to develop instant PTSD flashbacks. You need someone whose fight isn't seen as being over.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Certainly that would be the answer of the person who does not like the old coot.

The salient question is, how many more like this disliker of the old coot are there?

There were enough that the Democrats picked Hillary Clinton, and all of her perceived baggage, over him. As others have said, a better idea is for Sanders to play kingmaker and throw his political weight behind a candidate who isn't an old man, with terrible hair, who is mainly known for yelling at clouds.

The best idea is that he stays out of the 2020 race. His campaign was a sad, unfunny, joke whose punchline is Donald Trump. Someone like Elizabeth Warren, or maybe someone with strong liberal principles but comes from a place closer to the political "center" like Kirsten Gillibrand, would make for a better candidate in 2020 than Sanders. Especially since they might not be facing the Donald Trump of 2017 ... it's definitely possible that Mitch McConnell will decide that Trump is more idiot than useful, and the Senate will turn on him in the back half of his administration ... so Trump will end up getting hung out to dry in 2020.

[Gandalf]

The question is: should Bernie Sanders seek the Democratic nomination again? And if he did, could he get it?

The only way I can see him getting the nomination is if the DNC decides to shelve their major talent until 2024. As for the first question, I say no. The Democrats need good senators who can carry their brand in the less glamourous sections of government, and that's where he's as his best as Vermont likely won't get rid of him.

[His Divine Shadow]

I think even old as balls sanders would have a better chance than someone "centrist". Centrist politics is the typical establishment politics that lead to Clinton. It's basically neoliberalism and it's dead, it just doesn't know it. A flaming turd on a stick would do better than such a candidate. I suspect the democrats will nominate exactly such a candidate and the world will have 8 years of trump. I think the world in 4 or 8 years might be very different, might be a world without a euro or an EU. What was that old saying about it being too late for the pebbles to vote...

[ray245]

The Democrats need someone with actual charisma of any kind to win the election.whatever you say about Trump, he has a fair degree of charisma for his supporters.

[The Romulan Republic]

I think even old as balls sanders would have a better chance than someone "centrist". Centrist politics is the typical establishment politics that lead to Clinton. It's basically neoliberalism and it's dead, it just doesn't know it. A flaming turd on a stick would do better than such a candidate. I suspect the democrats will nominate exactly such a candidate and the world will have 8 years of trump. I think the world in 4 or 8 years might be very different, might be a world without a euro or an EU. What was that old saying about it being too late for the pebbles to vote...

I don't know- the Centrist establishment's credibility got a real kick in the teeth this year. If it was the disastrous losses of of McGovern and Mondale that made the Dems. move towards the Clintonite Centre, then perhaps Clinton's defeat to Trump (narrower but far more damaging and embarrassing to the country) will have a similar effect.

That and, to be blunt, the old guard is going to be dying off. And the younger Sanders demographic is going to be becoming a bigger and bigger part of the party, unless they do something stupid like quit because they didn't win this time and either stay home or squander votes on Libertarians/Greens.

I also think its encouraging that you had both a progressive leader (Bernie) and a Centrist leader (Schumer) uniting to endorse Ellison for DNC Chair a while back.

On that note: Look to who ultimately gets the DNC Chair spot, and the 2018 primary results, for an indication of which way the wind is blowing.

[Lagmonster]

Going IRL for a moment, just once I'd like to hear someone not give a shit who gets nominated for president, and spend a few minutes rubbing brain cells to come up with a wishlist for a solid cabinet.

I'm not saying the presidency isn't supposed to be important, but people (again, not on this board specifically) talk about the role as though they were discussing the auditions for America: The Movie. I get a fucking twitch in my eye when people on the street say, "I wanted Sanders" when discussing millenial issues, or "I voted Obama" when discussing racial issues, or "I voted Hillary" when discussing gender issues. It's partially infuriating to see the president treated as though they should be a mirror for the local majority and not as the most qualified leader given whatever are the current economic or geopolitical realities.

[Flagg]

I've learned from experience that the fastest way to derail a thread is to debate Sanders' merits with you, so let's just agree to disagree, M'kay?

No. If you post something about Senator Crazy Hair that I find to be wrong, I'm going to say something. You're more than welcome to not respond.

[Flagg]

Going IRL for a moment, just once I'd like to hear someone not give a shit who gets nominated for president, and spend a few minutes rubbing brain cells to come up with a wishlist for a solid cabinet.

I'm not saying the presidency isn't supposed to be important, but people (again, not on this board specifically) talk about the role as though they were discussing the auditions for America: The Movie. I get a fucking twitch in my eye when people on the street say, "I wanted Sanders" when discussing millenial issues, or "I voted Obama" when discussing racial issues, or "I voted Hillary" when discussing gender issues. It's partially infuriating to see the president treated as though they should be a mirror for the local majority and not as the most qualified leader given whatever are the current economic or geopolitical realities.

I'm sick of the idea that you should "like" or even worse, "trust" a candidate to vote for them. I don't like Clinton, but she was the most qualified candidate for the office than anyone in my lifetime and well before. As far as trust, anyone who trusts a politician can send me $5 and I will share with them the secret to making easy money (it's totally not offering to tell people how to make easy money if they send you $5 ).

[Simon_Jester]

Going IRL for a moment, just once I'd like to hear someone not give a shit who gets nominated for president, and spend a few minutes rubbing brain cells to come up with a wishlist for a solid cabinet.

I'm not saying the presidency isn't supposed to be important, but people (again, not on this board specifically) talk about the role as though they were discussing the auditions for America: The Movie. I get a fucking twitch in my eye when people on the street say, "I wanted Sanders" when discussing millenial issues, or "I voted Obama" when discussing racial issues, or "I voted Hillary" when discussing gender issues. It's partially infuriating to see the president treated as though they should be a mirror for the local majority and not as the most qualified leader given whatever are the current economic or geopolitical realities.

I can sympathize with that. At the same time, filling out a candidate list for the cabinet is hard; there are a lot of potential choices, and many of them are pretty obscure individuals until they become cabinet secretaries.

Plus, the quality of the cabinet tends to mirror the quality of the president, as we are now seeing with Trumpolini and the meretricious, contemptible trash he's filling his cabinet with. Elect a good president and you can expect a cabinet that at least knows what the hell they're doing, even if you disagree with their politics. Elect an idiot, or an easily manipulated person, or a fanatic, and you'll get a cabinet full of unqualified people, manipulators, and fanatics.

So I can see the reason why people use the identity of the president, specifically, as a proxy for that- because realistically, any given president will fill their cabinet with other people of the same general stripe as themselves.