Bernie Sanders to run for president as a Democrat

What’s that you say? You’re not happy with a coronation of centrist Democrat Hillary Clinton?

You’d rather have a real progressive in the race? Well how about a real socialist?

Senator Bernard Sanders, the independent from Vermont, plans to run for president as a Democrat, becoming the only official party challenger so far to Hillary Rodham Clinton.

According to people familiar with the senator’s plans, he will release a statement on Thursday and make a more formal announcement of candidacy later next month in Vermont. That event will likely take place at City Hall in Burlington, where he was mayor.

Mr. Sanders, who considers himself a “Democratic Socialist,” has been traveling recently in early nominating states like Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina to gauge interest in his candidacy.

While considered a long-shot for the Democratic nomination, Mr. Sanders could be another voice drawing Mrs. Clinton to the left because of his progressive views on trade, health care and corporate lobbying.

“Are we prepared to take on the enormous economic and political power of the billionaire class, or do we continue to slide into economic and political oligarchy?” Mr. Sanders said on his website.


Related Articles

12 thoughts on “Bernie Sanders to run for president as a Democrat

  1. I’m not a socialist, but I feel as though I have to support Bernie to help Dems wake up.

    1. D12,

      Do you want to cut Social Security and Medicare?

      From January 2015 “McConnell Hints at Possible New ‘Grand Bargain’ With Obama”

      You won’t catch Sec. Clinton or any of the GOP candidates (except for Rand Paul, maybe Huckabee?) suggesting cuts to Wall Street’s welfare.

      “Bank Of America Dumps $75 Trillion In Derivatives On U.S. Taxpayers With Federal Approval”

      To put $75 trillion in perspective, US GDP in 2012 was around $16.5 trillion. We blew a lot more than the $6 trillion they’re claiming in Iraq and Afghanistan. Social Security’s Trust Fund is around $2.3 trillion. Bank of America is just one Wall Street bank. They all have derivative exposure. I’ve seen estimates of $700 trillion, but I don’t think anyone knows.

      With a Clinton or Bush in the White House, Wall Street CEO’s know there’s no chance of criminal indictments that could result in prison time.

      I guarantee you that Sec. Clinton will run on the fiscal illiteracy of a “balanced” federal budget.

      “Demand Leakages: The 800lb Economist in the Room”

      “I can’t say I’ve seen anyone in the deficit debates talking about the demand leakages. Not a mention in the mainstream press, financial news media, or any of the thousands of economic reports? That’s like discussing the right horsepower for a truck or an airplane without any consideration of the weight of the vehicle.

      Demand leakages are unspent income. For a given currency, if any agent doesn’t spend his income, some other agent has to spend more than his income, or that much output doesn’t get sold. So if the non government sectors collectively don’t spend all of their income, it’s up to government to make sure its income is less than its spending, or that much output doesn’t get sold. This translates into what’s commonly called the ‘output gap,’ which is largely a sanitized way of saying unemployment.

      And with the private sector necessarily pro cyclical, the (whopping) private sector spending gap in this economy can only be filled with by government via either a (whopping) tax cut and/or spending increase (depending on one’s politics).

      So wherefore the ‘demand leakages?’ The lion’s share are due to tax advantages for not spending your income, including pension contributions, IRA’s and all kinds of corporate reserves. Then there’s foreign hoards accumulated to support foreign exporters. And it all should be a very good thing — all of that net unspent income means that for a given size government, and a given non government rate of credit expansion, our taxes can be that much lower. Personally, I’d rather have a tax cut than a policy to get other people to spend their unspent income or borrow more. But that’s just me…”

      The “government deficit = non-government surplus, to the penny.” All a federal surplus does is REDUCE the size of the pie for the private sector. We don’t borrow dollars from China or our grandchildren. As long as a debt is denominated in U.S. dollars, the U.S. government can always pay it. Dollars are a measuring stick, like the points on the scoreboard, like the inches on a ruler. We can’t “run out.” There’s plenty of stuff we can run out of, clean water, clean air, safe food, sustainable energy, some metals and minerals.

      If the U.S. gets demand-pull inflation (too many dollars chasing too few goods) or price instability, yes in those cases federal taxes may make sense. Managing aggregate demand is one of their primary purposes, but “(Federal) Taxes For Revenue Are Obsolete”

    2. @Duane12, Frank Zeidler was our mayor (not his good brother Carl). In John Gurda’s words:

      “Underlying their notion of public enterprise was an abiding faith – curiously antique by today’s standards – in the goodness of government, especially local government. The Socialists believed that government was the locus of our common wealth – the resources that belong to all of us and each of us – and they worked to build a community of interest around a deeply shared belief in the common good.

      The results were plain to see. After years in the political sewer, Milwaukee became, under “sewer Socialists” Seidel, Hoan and Zeidler, a model of civic virtue. Time Magazine called Milwaukee “perhaps the best-governed city in the U.S.” in 1936, and the community won trophy after trophy for public health, traffic safety and fire prevention. The health prize came home so often that Milwaukee had to be retired from competition to give other municipalities a chance.”

      1. La Mer, thanks, John Gurda’s a treasure.

        OT, with the demise of labor unions and the rise of robots, a lot of people on the left and right are looking at a basic income guarantee.

        The link below, “Rethinking the Idea of a Basic Income for All,”

        is about conservatives and libertarians who support it.

        There are different ways to structure it. IMHO, what makes the most sense is giving every adult the same check every month, say $1,000. Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, the Koch brothers get exactly what everyone else gets. The advantage of that is no one can call it welfare.

      2. La Mer, thanks for your response, but I was eleven years old and can still remember the shock of news that our former mayor, Carl Zeidler, was missing and later determined, he went down on his ship in the south Atlantic.

        I believe his brother, Frank also served later as mayor. I did not follow politics then as I do now.

  2. This should serve as a nice little wakeup call to establishment Dems, along with Senator Warren’s stick-poking behavior. I’m hopeful we don’t end up in Nader territory here, but would absolutely love to see Dems forced to horse-trade a little bit with the progressive wing of the party.

    1. Sue, well said.

      As we get closer to the general election, Dems get-out-the-vote efforts will clobber liberals and progressives with two strong arguments, voter registration and Supreme Court nominations. Obama’s been good on voter rights and a lot better than Romney on Supreme Court nominations and nominations of federal judges.

      IMHO, it’s smart of liberals and progressives to support Sen. Sanders, because it’s about the only way to pin candidates down. IMHO, there’s a lot of support on left and right for Social Security and Medicare. The only place Wall Street has support is in DC where they bribe everyone, but that really counts.

    2. Well said Sue- the DC Dems and other establishment members have been sleepwalking, and they need a wake up call from the Democratic wing of the party (which is the wing that WINS).

      No one can tell the real truths that need to be said better than Bernie. And if Hillary thinks she can stay vague, and glide to the nomination, she’s gonna lose.

      I love this. Let’s have more challengers, and make Hillary EARN it, while getting Dem ideas out in the debate

  3. This will make Hillary run as a true progressive, if nothing else. Her call today to end the era of “mass incarceration” in America is a good start.

    1. Scott Walker promised to create 250K jobs in his first term. Hillary’s stripes are tattooed into place and they are not progressive ones. She could yodel Dueling Banjos from the movie Deliverance while spinning fresh carded wool and serving hot apple pie but she’d be no more of a candidate of we the people than Mr $1 sweater.

  4. My check to help Bernie Sanders is in the mail.

    For me– in 2016, if it is not Sanders, Warren, O’Malley, or some reputable candidate, my vote will go again to Jill Stein.

    Take the time to check into funding of the Clinton Foundation– big foreign contributors obviously expect special treatment in return, much like Mark Rich got his presidential pardon– after a big contribution. Goldman Sacks will also be rewarded with another Clinton in office.

Comments are closed.