1. ….and the GOP wins in 2016. Thank you, Senator!!

2. Thank you, Michael, for your comment, because it gives me a chance to rebut that common idea. In the non-fiction book “Predictably Irrational” by Dan Ariely, psychological research is presented that rebuts the common idea. If individuals are presented three choices and asked to choose their favorite, it turns out that if two of the three choices are similar, and yet one is inferior in some obvious way to the other similar choice, then that other similar choice gets an advantage over the third choice (the one that is not similar to either of the other two). Applying that to elections, if one candidate has a conservative platform and two candidates have a liberal platform, but one of the two candidates is obviously inferior to the other, then the other liberal candidate gets an advantage compared to the conservative candidate. Sanders would be the obvious inferior choice because he would be perceived as not having a chance to win.

   We resist this evidence because those of us who frequent web pages like this one are highly ideological people. But research on voters for over 60 years have consistently shown that most voters are not ideological. Most voters are not like the kind of people like us.

   Furthermore, other evidence supports the “Predictably Irrational” evidence. Sam Lubell’s “The Future of American Politics” shows convincing poll data that Henry Wallace not only helped Harry Truman to beat Tom Dewey in 1948, that if Wallace had not run, Truman would have lost. Also in 2004, the nation’s three leading pollsters gave extra questions to respondents who said they would vote for Ralph Nader. The extra questions showed that to a slight extent, a majority of Nader voters said if Nader weren’t running they would vote for Bush, not Kerry. This is further confirmed by the election returns for Nader in 2004. See the front page story in Ballot Access News, Jan. 1, 2005 print issue.

3. 1. Divide and Conquer — been working for thousands of years. See the killer tyrant J. Caesar in Rome.

   2. How many BILLIONS will the Elephants give – to divide and conquer the liberal, socialist, communist left ???

   See 1992 — the Perot STUNT MORON at work.
   Minority rule Clinton in 1993.
   Elephants win USA H. Reps. in 1994 — after a mere 50 years of nonstop Donkey control.

4. Thanks Richard. This is further evidenced by Robert Sarvis actually taking more votes away from McAuliffe than Cuccinelli, contrary to what most Republicans thought would happen.

   A strong Bernie Sanders run would be good for any libertarian or libertarian-leaning candidate like Gary Johnson, because if people (erroneously) claimed that candidate was “taking” GOP votes, the counterargument could be made that whatever effect that candidate was having is probably counteracted by Sanders’ presence.

5. Thanks for mentioning Sam Lubell’s book and data. He is not brought up very much these days, but he was a pioneer in polling, doing things Gallup did not. (I was a friend of his son in high school and knew him back in the mid-60s.)

6. Why do they always do it as an independent?

   Why not enter the nominating process of an existing party?

7. Jesse Ventura only ran as the Reform Party nominee for Governor of Minnesota in 1998 because the party spent months talking him into it. One of the functions of political parties is to recruit good candidates, so maybe Sanders will be wooed by the Green Party or some other already-existing party.

8. Abolish the time bomb Electoral College.

   1860 timebomb election — result about 750,000 DEAD on both sides in 1861-1865.

   Means nothing to the armies of New Age math and history flippant MORONS.

   P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.

9. So Richard, if Sanders won or even just sought the nomination of a tiny political party, say the Green Party, or Justice Party, or Socialist Party USA, but was on most or all ballots as an independent, he’d qualify for matching funds?

10. Yes. Ralph Nader got primary season matching funds in 2004 and 2008. Even though he was basically an independent candidate both times, each time he sought the nomination of at least one party. In 2004 it was the Reform Party. In 2008 it was a party that barely existed, and which only had two state affiliates, the Hawaii Independent Party, and the Florida Ecology Party. The party held its national convention at the Los Angeles Airport and nominated Nader.

11. Perhaps a head fake designed to convince Sen. Warren to compete for the Democratic nomination?

12. Well this would be fun to see…Sanders might have a crack at winning Vermont as a third party or indy candidate.

13. The election of Bernie Sanders to the U.S. Senate was accomplished with support of the Democratic Party, and in Vermont Sen. Sanders has often supported Democrats even when challenged by Progressive Party candidates, and he has always supported the Democrat nominee for President, even in 2000 when the Progressive Party endorsed Ralph Nader.

    It is very unlikely he would jeopardize this support by running for President against the Democrat nominee.

    Nonetheless, I blogged this story @ Independent Political Report
    http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2013/11/sen-bernie-sanders-considers-independent-run-for-president/

14. In 1980, Bernie Sanders was a presidential elector candidate for the Socialist Workers Party in Vermont.

15. Bernie as the Green Party candidate makes a great deal of sense.

    Thanks for the news.

    Could Bernie Saunders Green Party candidate do better than Doctor Stein, or even better than Ralph Nader?

    I’d like see Bernie as the Green Party candidate. As it would likely grow the Green Party, and pull many more Greens to run for U.S. House, and U.S. Senate.

16. Sanders and the Green Party could take Vermont and get at least 5-10 percent of the national vote. It would make things intersting in 2016.

17. As a self described socialist it would make more sense for Sanders to run as the Socialist Party’s candidate or on a United Socialist ticket than on the reform capitalist Green Party.

18. Art, do you have have to be so negative about the Greens everywhere I see you comment? The Greens officially support neither capitalism nor socialism. I know you are upset because some Il Greens challenged your lone signature to get Stewart Alexander on the ballot. Even though this move was condemned by many high profile Greens, including Stein and Rich Whitney.

    If socialists reach out to him and get him to run for the nomination of some bigger parties, all the power to them. Maybe it will be just what they need to work together. Sawant has done a good job at working with both other socialist groups and the Green Party. I would like to see that success replicated.

19. Green Party members and other progressives are petitioning Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, an independent, to reach out to prominent Greens such as Jill Stein and to eventually seek the Green Party nomination for president in 2016. Sanders has called for a “political revolution” in the United States and has announced that he might run for president. He has a small window of opportunity to help make that political revolution happen by helping to build the Green Party, which exists in direct opposition to the current two-party system. Please join us by asking Sanders to reach out to Jill Stein and to eventually seek the Green Party nomination. You can read and sign the petition at https://www.change.org/petitions/senator-bernie-sanders-run-for-president-in-2016-as-a-green-party-candidate. A political revolution will not happen by tinkering within the Democratic Party or by going alone as an independent; if Sanders is going to run, then he needs a party, and that party needs to be the Green Party.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.