Senator Bernie Sanders is proud of his status as an Independent Senator

[MineralMan]

from Vermont. He has won several elections there, running as an Independent candidate. That's his choice, and the voters in Vermont seem to like him, since they keep re-electing him. I cannot and would not fault him for his choice of party label. It is his decision, after all, and he runs for office in Vermont, a state where I do not live. He has been successful as an Independent, and usually votes with the Democratic Caucus in the Senate. Not always, but usually.

In 2016 and now in 2020, he ran and is running as a Democrat for the Democratic Party's nomination for President. After failing to win the party's nomination in 2016, he immediately reverted back to his Independent status. I expect that he will do the same in 2020 if he is not successful in winning the Democratic Party nomination.

Why should he change his long-standing status?

However, that temporary change of parties is troublesome for many long-term Democrats. It is troublesome for me. In every presidential election since 1968, I have cast my vote for the Democratic Party nominee for President. I am a Democrat. That is what I do, even when it is clear that the Democratic nominee will not win. My loyalty to the party is based on the historical fact that the people in this country do better when a Democrat is in the White House, and better yet when a Democratic President has a Democratic Congress. So, I always vote for the Democrats on my ballot for every partisan office.

Bernie Sanders has declared himself to be a Democrat for the purpose of running in the 2020 primary elections. He could not run for that nomination without that declaration. Is that a permanent change? Will he serve as a Democrat during his term in office, should he win the nomination and the general election? I don't know. I don't think anyone has asked him that question, to tell the truth.

He is a Democrat now because he could not seek the nomination without declaring himself to be a Democrat. But, is he a Democrat in his heart? That I do not know. Since he always reverts back to his Independent status when not running for President, I have some doubts about that.

I will vote for Senator Bernie Sanders if he becomes the nominee, of course, because he will be the Democratic nominee and because I always vote for Democrats. To do otherwise would be impossible for me. But, that does not mean that I hope he'll become our nominee for that office. I do not. I want a solid, long-time Democrat to be the nominee.

I'm not alone, either. Many Democrats I know feel the same way, and will vote for a demonstrated Democrat on their primary ballot. That's what I'll be doing, too.

[getagrip_already]

1. But what has he accomplished that he is proud of?

in his 40 +/- years in office?

I just don't see it. The next potus has to accomplish a lot. They will need to rebuild a government that has been shredded and packed with racists. They have to mend fences with allies - and that doesn't get done by an introvert with few people skills. They will need to rebuild confidence within the military and intel communities - and that doesn't get done by someone who states he hates intel and wants to dismantle the military.

Sorry, but I don't care that he is proud of being independent. I want someone effective.

YMMV.

[MineralMan]

2. That is not my concern. He is proud of being an Independent Senator.

He has voted many times for bills introduced by Democrats, and for that I thank him. It's difficult for an Independent Senator to introduce bills that will pass in the Senate, which is very clearly a party-based group. So, he has not successfully introduced very many bills that have ended up being passed. That's not surprising. But, his choice has been to retain his Independent status. He has stuck to that. I think he values that choice very highly for himself.

[getagrip_already]

4. disagree....

Independent senators can form alliances. Heck, even republicans in the minority have formed alliances and cosponsored major legislation.

Sticking to ideals is fine, except he wants to be potus - where he will need to get things done.

It is only on that basis that I disagree.

[PatSeg]

8. And I don't picture Sanders as a fence mender

What works for a senator from a small state like Vermont does not necessarily translate well to president of the United States and leader of the free world. As a senator, he is free to be uncompromising as long as the voters of Vermont don't mind. Stubbornness can be a positive quality when one's beliefs and principles are threatened, but anyone who wants to hold the highest office in the land, often has to make choices that don't necessarily coincide with his/her belief system.

I can't imagine being the president of the United States. Sometimes there are no good choices and doing nothing is not an option. An effective leader at times has choose least the harmful choice even though it may go against his/her core beliefs. I know that I could never do it and that is why I vote for a person who can.

[George II]

3. Sanders has never gotten more than 207,848 votes in an election.

[MineralMan]

5. Well, Vermont is a sparsely populated state.

I've been there a couple of times, and it's a lovely state, in part because it is not an urban state. So, I'm not surprised at his vote totals. You can't get votes from people who don't live there.

[George II]

6. Correct. Reminds me of the inverse of that Frank Sinatra song, "New York, New York"

[MineralMan]

7. I think Vermont would be a delightful place to live.

It is home to many small towns located in beautiful areas. Its only drawback is winter weather, but I live in Minnesota, so that's not really a point of comparison.

My favorite place in Vermont is the Trapp Family lodge in Stowe. When I had breakfast there in 1966, while visiting the family of my USAF roommate from the Russian Language School at Syracuse University, my roommate pointed out the manager of the restaurant, who was one of the children from the famous Trapp family. Fascinating!

[getagrip_already]

9. I live in mass and mostly agree with you..

Beautiful state, lovely people, but too many guns.

VT has literally no gun laws. No CC restrictions, no permit requirements. The only restrictions are federal.

It is very much a gun humping state. It's the people that don't abuse that keep things sane.

https://www.gunstocarry.com/gun-laws-state/vermont-gun-laws/

Vermont gun laws are the most permissive in the United States. The state does not issue permits for carrying firearms and operates on an "Unrestricted" policy. Any person 16 or older (Federal law requires the age to be 18) and who can legally possess a firearm is allowed to carry openly or concealed. There is no distinction between resident or non-resident, both are allowed to carry without a permit in Vermont.

[George II]

11. That's a big reason why I wouldn't want to live there. I HATE guns, don't want to be around them.

[MineralMan]

12. I don't hear about much gun violence in Vermont, though.

Maybe its uncrowded population is part of the reason for that. I don't know. But, I haven't been in Vermont since the mid-1960s, so I have no idea how things are there these days. It was pretty, though.

[getagrip_already]

13. It's a very rural, very monolithic population....

They don't like getting into each others business. It's not a hatfield/mccoy culture.

Nice people. Winter gets to them.

[MineralMan]

15. Ah, Winter Gets to Us All.

Lots of grumpy people around here in Minnesota this time of year. Including me, sometimes.

Right now, I'm grumpy about my neighbor across the street, who left two cars on the street after our most recent snow. The snowplows went around them, leaving a huge lump of snow partially blocking the street. Despite the declaration of a snow emergency and a requirement to get cars off the street, there they were.

Now, both cars got ticketed by the St. Paul police, and it's going to cost that neighbor about $150 to pay those tickets. But, there they were, messing up our snow removal efforts. Meanwhile two non-functioning vehicles are sitting in that neighbor's driveway, and have been for six months. "I'm going to fix them," the neighbor says. He's not going to fix them. He never fixes cars. Eventually, they'll get towed away to the junkyard. I wish he had already done that.

Still, I'm just grumpy about it. I'm not going to make a big deal over it. But, it's annoying.

[handmade34]

36. again, the low population

is what makes it possible... in reference to rules, I used to tell my kids... the more people, the more rules are needed

I often hear gunshot near my house (although I have 200-300 acres of woods behind me.. unfortunately, I don't own it)

it is some uncomfortable going out walking in the back during hunting season... we have a number of orange vests hanging in the back room for that purpose

[George II]

10. It's okay, pretty in the summer but not a place I'd like to live.

[handmade34]

38. this is our song...

[handmade34]

14. key word Independent

do not say I broke the rules of DU by bashing Bernie... he is an Independent, not a Democrat!

[MineralMan]

16. I'm not bashing Bernie anyway.

I'm just explaining my reluctance to support him for the Democratic nomination.

[handmade34]

37. not a reference to you

just the post and reference to DU rules "not bashing Democratic figures" I know in my heart Bernie would not make a good President and he should not have been allowed to run as a Democrat... the party system is another matter altogether, but as it stands, this is DU (Democratic Underground, capital D) although hopefully democratic in nature

[aikoaiko]

17. Oh no. The party affiliation concerns.

[MineralMan]

18. Nope. However, we do have a de facto two-party system here.

Which side are you on? That will always end up being a crucial question in the United States. There are only two choices, really, on a statewide and national basis.

That becomes more and more evident as time goes by.

You can, of course, be on a different path than the rest of the population. You can take a different track. But, in general terms, it will still be operated as a two-party system. You just won't be part of the decision-making if you take a third path.

[aikoaiko]

19. Bernie is demonstrating how one might be an independent and succeed in a de facto 2-part system

It probably won't work for Bernie, but no one thought it was even possible before 2015.

Plus Bernie is a member of the Democratic party Senate Leadership Team.

http://www.senate.gov/senators/leadership.htm

You might say that's not much of a decision making-role, but it is noteworthy.

[MineralMan]

20. Really, I don't think Bernie will become the Democratic nominee.

Again. I just don't see a path to that for him. I don't necessarily see that as a good or bad thing. I see it as a real thing, though.

The same factors are in play in 2020 as they were in 2016. Bernie will probably have about the same results this year as he did then. As the field of candidates gets pared down, the shift will not be in Bernie Sanders' favor. This time, too, he has competition in the sector he has chosen for himself. Elizabeth Warren will continue to earn delegates, although probably fewer than Sanders does.

I don't see a path.

[aikoaiko]

21. I tend to agree, but he is demonstrating how an independent can be involved and possibly win.

[MineralMan]

23. Nothing prevents any candidate from being involved.

The only thing that prevents a candidate from winning is the will of the voters. To win, a candidate has to convince more voters that he or she is the best choice this time around. That is a high bar to leap over.

The system is what the system is. For presidential races, it ends up being a binary choice in the end. If we fail to recognize that and vote for the better choice, we end up with the worse choice. We are seeing the results of that right now in the Senate chambers.

I hope we do better in 2020. I truly do.

[Demsrule86]

30. I like the graphic...but disagree. I am a Democrat, I vote Democratic...party affiliation is an

important consideration for me.

[Tom Rinaldo]

22. I know there are others who share your viewpoint on this, but I don't

We live in a nation where more people register as Independents than with either of the major parties, and we live in a nation where minor party candidates potentially pull votes away from major party candidates in general elections. I am among those who refuse to vote for Green Party candidates for that reason, except perhaps in a rare local race.

I was upset with the role that both Ralph Nader and Jill Stein played in hotly contested presidential elections which resulted in Republicans winning the White House. I appreciate it when a potential Independent candidate who strongly opposes the right wing in America pledges not to run in a general election against a Democratic candidate, but contests for the Democratic nomination instead, with the understanding that they will endorse whoever finally wins that nomination. If Democratic voters don't want that person as our nominee they can vote for a long time self professed Democrat instead. It is very difficult for a(technically prior) Independent to win a Democratic Party nomination running against seasoned and popular Democrats. But if they do, they do.

By running for the Democratic nomination an Independent sends a clear signal to other Independents about which of our major two parties other Independents should turn to for leadership whenever a General Election comes around. I think that is helpful to Democrats in a nation in which we remain a distinct minority.

[MineralMan]

24. The 2020 general election will not be about the candidates, but about general directions.

That is always the case. The voters will decide, either through their votes or through their non-participation. Sadly, too many people do not participate in what is the binary choice we face in November. They aren't fans of either nominee, so they choose not to make the choice that will lead to one of the two candidates winning.

The irony is that the choice to abandon the responsibility often works to the detriment of those who make that choice. In the Primary process, one can support and vote for any of the people who run. Once that process is over, though, it becomes a binary choice which will result in one or another person moving into the White House. There is no third option. There really can't be in our system.

Spite voting or not voting just means you didn't participate in the choice, and will have to live with what others decide. It's that simple, but some people don't get that simple fact.

I hope we do better in 2020.

[Tom Rinaldo]

25. I couldn't agree on this more. n/t

[MineralMan]

26. Thanks. I'm all about outcomes when it comes to

presidential election.

[Demsrule86]

31. It sends the message that Party is not good enough to support as a member IMHO. Sanders had

no choice but to run as a Democrat for the nomination but has filed to run Indie in Vermont in 24. If you don't think our party is good enough to support as a member, I won't vote for you in a primary...a general yes but never a primary.

[KPN]

27. I'm good with Bernie as a Democrat or an I. It's his positions, views and ideas --

not a label.

[Demsrule86]

32. I vote for Democrats period. I would vote for Sanders if he is in the general of course.

[KPN]

39. So do I. The upside is Sanders runs as a Democrat.

He could run as an I or other 3rd party. Yeah, it gives him better chances, but it also doesn’t hurt the Democratic Party — at least in my view. I understand some would argue otherwise, but I disagree.

[Demsrule86]

33. And I would add that is what some who voted for Stein in 16 said...they don't care about party just

ideas...blah blah...well the only alternative to the GOP is a Democrat. Not saying you feel this way...just in general. I vote for D...not ideology.

[KPN]

40. I vote for who I think is best. In all cases, that has been the Democrat

on the ticket throughout my 49 voting years. I would vote for Sanders ahead of some other Democratic candidates in this year’s primary. And I’ll have zero problem voting for him should he win the nomination — which I would find very surprising.

[Demsrule86]

41. Vote D ...or we will lose elections...people won't always love their nominee but the alternative is

always worse.

[KPN]

42. Preaching to the choir ... but I don't judge or

lay blame on folks who vote elsewhere for change. That’s their right and I respect it. I have an opportunity to influence them, win them over and I take it. You do too as does every a Democratic Party candidate. Not winning them over isn’t the voters’ fault though. It’s ours.

[Quackers]

28. Here's the problem

Bernie has a history of competing in Democratic primaries, winning the primary, then declining the nomination so he can keep his Independent label.

In my opinion, he does this to ensure he won’t have any competition from the left. This is not honorable nor should it be allowed.

[Demsrule86]

34. I agree. He needs to run Indie in Vermont.

[Demsrule86]

29. +1000 K&R

[apnu]

35. I agree, the Democratic primary is for the Party, not the country.

And thus, the winner will need to appeal to party members more than whatever left leaning independents who come along for the ride.

The General Election is for the country. Right now, all of this is about internal Democratic Party issues, but happens in a very public way.

I don't mean the people who vote Democratic because of identity, I am talking about the people who actually make up the party. Who go to the meetings, who work for, who volunteer, who phone bank, who raise money, who donate to the Democratic Party. They are the party, everybody else is just along for the ride.

Its those people Bernie has to convince to win this primary season. And on the left/progressive side of things, he's got competition mainly from Warren, but also Mayor Pete. By Feb. 1 of 2016, O'Malley had dropped out, seeding the whole left field to Bernie.

So Bernie's first, biggest, task is gathering much of the progressive Democratic party members to his side, no small task, when there are a bunch of Democratic members who will like a long time Democratic member over a career indy.

In 2016, I voted for Bernie in my state's primary. I want a progressive to lead us and he was my only option. Not that I had a problem with Hillary, but I wanted to see a progressive have a go at it. I still want that, but I'm backing Warren instead this year, mainly because she's a team player. She can and does build coalitions. That's important to me.

This is a big tent, we make space for everybody here, including Bernie who loves being an outsider. We need leadership that can listen to all the groups, and plot a course forward for most.

That's how democracy works: compromise and collations.

[Gothmog]

43. I am proud to be a member of the Democratic Party and I want to nominate a Democrat

I will support the nominee of the party. I want the nominee to be a proud member of the party. I really doubt that sanders will be the nominee of the party. There are far too many real Democrats who have good memories and who will not forgive or forget