FWIS3

We shall see if it’s true.... Sen. Sanders has said several times before that he has no interest in running...

brite wrote:We shall see if it’s true.... Sen. Sanders has said several times before that he has no interest in running...

[quote=http://news.yahoo.com/vermont-sen-bernie-sanders-am-running-president-000144179--election.html]It is true.[/url]

I posted that, and within 10 minutes he threw his hat into the ring....

brite wrote:I posted that, and within 10 minutes he threw his hat into the ring....

Your post was perfectly reasonable, considering what he's said in the past.

Well it would've been weird if no one ran against Hillary... that said, he's got a looooong road ahead if he's going to be actually viable.

Rommie wrote:Well it would've been weird if no one ran against Hillary... that said, he's got a looooong road ahead if he's going to be actually viable.

I'd be very shocked if he's viable at all, but he will push Hillary farther left, and I think that would be a good thing.

SciFi Chick wrote:

Rommie wrote:Well it would've been weird if no one ran against Hillary... that said, he's got a looooong road ahead if he's going to be actually viable.

I'd be very shocked if he's viable at all, but he will push Hillary farther left, and I think that would be a good thing.

I actually think it would be a bad thing. Hillary Clinton is who she is - no campaign is going to change that. So, if you want a Democrat elected instead of a Republican, it would be best that Ms. Clinton not be forced to take a more liberal stand on pretty much anything. Democrats are already going to vote for her; it's the undecided vote that matters in a campaign.

geonuc wrote:

SciFi Chick wrote:

Rommie wrote:Well it would've been weird if no one ran against Hillary... that said, he's got a looooong road ahead if he's going to be actually viable.

I'd be very shocked if he's viable at all, but he will push Hillary farther left, and I think that would be a good thing.

I actually think it would be a bad thing. Hillary Clinton is who she is - no campaign is going to change that. So, if you want a Democrat elected instead of a Republican, it would be best that Ms. Clinton not be forced to take a more liberal stand on pretty much anything. Democrats are already going to vote for her; it's the undecided vote that matters in a campaign.

Agreed. Thing about Ms. Clinton is that I don't know how many people are all that undecided about her as a person, as she's been in the public eye for so long. I think at the end of the day tho it's more just going to be an ideological election, ie what will matter is not the person but the party.

I also really doubt she has any reason to really think she needs to amend her opinions politically at this stage, especially if she could hold her own so well 8 years ago against Obama. Sanders is a walk in the park compared to those months, as well as Biden or whoever else might run. If anything I think that hurts you as a candidate because those who survive a hard vetting process tend to also get a lot of free interest... and with the money in it these days (ie you don't have to quit due to lack of funds anymore, just lack of votes) I can imagine that happening in the Republican side of things.

Swift wrote:

Thumper wrote:Paul Krugman had an interesting article basically stating that this election, more than any other in recent memory will be about parties and not individuals. No matter who runs as a republican, we know all their major positions, same with the democrats. So people will be voting on ideology, not personality. He doesn't understand anyone that is undecided now and certainly not someone still undecided in the coming year.

Hey, I was able to find it quickly.

Yeah that sounds about right

Some people have already been saying the same thing.