Isn't he running as a Democrat though?

I am excited, I just feel he is running at a terrible time. Uphill battle against names that end in "Clinton" "Bush" "Paul" and a few more big names. I wish the best to him and damn do I respect it, just feel it is so mistimed.

" this will mark the first time since Ross Perot that any remotely alternative ideas have actually been brought to the national spotlight instead of the same Democrat/Republican bullshit."

Um... <cough>Ron Paul</cough>

Ron Paul is hardly alternative compared to Sanders or Perot. His foreign policy and economic policy are obviously different than most Republicans but his perspective is well known in the mainstream and has been since 2007/8. He is not typical, I will give you that, but Sanders is a self-declared socialist that argues some of the most progressive and futuristic stances of anyone in politics. He's far more radical and alternative than Paul will ever be.

@Leon ... he's running as a Democrat, which means he'll get national attention in the primary and maybe beyond if he somehow wins.

I love seeing a true liberal enter the race. Whatever happens. I like Bill Clinton and Obama, but they were/are too conservative. And maybe that's what it takes to win. But Sanders is closer to representing my values than anyone I've seen in a long time.

I would love to see a Clinton/Sanders or Sanders/Warren ticket, honestly.

@Bo- That Clinton/Sanders ticket would be amazing.... however I wouldn't mind seeing a Clinton/(Insert moderate republican name here) ... I mean that would really cause a stir and like a sanders VP ticket it would really help neutralize the partisan politics in Washington.

"Ron Paul is hardly alternative compared to Sanders or Perot"

Bo, I know you're too young to remember, but Ross Perot (who I was quite sympathetic to and nearly got my first vote for president in 1996) was far more mainstream than Ron Paul was. Perot only differed from Clinton/Bush on two major issues: eliminating the budget deficit and NAFTA. In contrast, Ron Paul deviated from political orthodoxy on:
1) Ending the Drug War
2) Stopping the war in Iraq
3) Eliminating the Federal Reserve
4) Eliminating the Income Tax
5) Overseas interventionism/wars in general
6) Ending the 'Drug War'
7) Drastically cutting government spending
8) Abolish the Patriot Act
9) End Eminent Domain
10) End federal control of education

This is a short list, but it represents far more wide-ranging, sweeping, and dramatic changes to the political system than anything Bernie Sanders would ever deign to propose, as he simply regurgitates the same socialist positions that have been tried over and over again and have been failed to produce positive results for over a hundred years now.

Wait what? Since when was welfare capitalism a failed socialist position? Somebody forgot to tell the rest of the world.

Heh heh....best part of Ross Perot....damn, it's a toss up between the aligator claw pointer, and VP Candidate Vice Admiral "Why-Am-I-Here" Stockdale...

Krellin! I though you finally got yourself banned. Can you please head into Byron's thread on CD's and help explain to people how they need to man up?

LeonWalras: He's running in the Democratic primary, yes. Given the electoral system in the United States, that is precisely what he should be doing if he has any hope of winning the presidency.

@Tolstoy ... I consider Perot unique solely because he did what he did as a third party. I won't deny that Ron Paul was different; I am simply saying that Sanders is far, far more different. I'm busy, already written two papers today and in the middle of the third, so I don't really care to fight you on that right now. If you want to read what I said as "since Ron Paul in 2008," fine, it makes no difference. The overarching point is that we don't have enough people that actually have opinions on these things. The only people we hear from are figureheads that say the same thing anyone else in their party would.

abge ... Me? Banned? waaaa ha ha ha ha hah a hah ah ahah ahah aah !!! Not yet, my friend.

It's funny, but people have Bernie all wrong.

#1 - he's a <i>democratic</i> socialist, which is important.
#2 - he's much less left of center than most of the Republicans are right of center. Scott Walker and Ted Cruz are WAY more radically right than Bernie is Left.

A lot of people dismiss him as another Kucinich. But there's a big difference - Bernie is a Liberal but NOT an idealogue. Kucinich and Bernie both believe that Medicare for everyone is the right thing to do - but Kucinich wouldn't vote for anything EXCEPT single-payer, while Bernie stood up and said that the ACA wasn't what he wanted, but it was better than nothing. He understands the art of the compromise.

Hillary is already tacking left to fend off any real challenge from him. I hope he and Elizabeth Warren hold her accountable for promises she'll make during the campaign.

Does he retain his Senate seat if he loses the Presidential race?

Oh God Hilary/Sanders would be amazing

Ron Paul is much more aligned with me on issues, so I prefer him, but I think they're both different, and refreshing to see in the absurdity that is US politics. A debate on who's more different, to me, seems very silly; it's more about the individual voter agreeing with the candidate. And as I said, both Paul and now Sanders are representing voters that aren't often represented. And that's great.

(On a non-political note, it's interesting how both of them are somewhat old guys. Correlation or coincidence?)

@DeathLlama9 But that would mean a Hilary presidency. Maybe I'm misreading her, but she seems like more Bush/Obama just even more out of touch.

IMO the Republican candidates this year are awful, and while I'd prefer a Sanders presidency that's unlikely to happen.

"His foreign policy and economic policy are obviously different than most Republicans but his perspective is well known in the mainstream and has been since 2007/8."

Who do you think made those policies mainstream?

Ron Paul, when he ran for President and effectively started the Tea Party. That's exactly what I am saying. What I am also saying is that the Tea Party is far closer to the ideologies of the Republicans around that time than Sanders' ideology is to the Democrats today. Regardless, both of them are relatively adaptable and both of them forced/will force that party's leading candidate to adjust their own views in that direction to attract opposition from the other side of the split.

Depending on what comes out about Sanders as the campaign goes on, I'd be willing to vote for him.

However, mark my words - monied interests will shoot his campaign down. He will lose, not because the public doesn't support him, but because our plutocrat governors don't support him.

Also, any of you who are self respecting egalitarians should not vote for Hilary Clinton. She is basically George Bush

In one of his speeches, he talked for 30 minutes straight about the issues in America nobody's talking about: Poverty and Climate Change were his top 2.

Poverty is EXTREMELY talked about and CLimate Change happens, but if I hear a single word from him about Global Warming I just NONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONO because people are idiots and NONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONO but at least he doesn't like all this defense spending crap. I wish we lived in a monarchy.

ah well. back to crying myself to sleep. wait! my traumatized existence has made me an insomniac? brilliant -.-

I think america's political field would be much more responsive with a *serious* third party. I mean sanders and paul aren't necessarily 3rd party but they are an alternative view. I think that they come as close to what i would like to see and that is a multi-party political field. I think a moderate party could really take off if it was done right; I think we just lack the figure head and charisma needed for it.

@Byron, we lack the voting system for it. Under the FPTP system, no third party will win any important positions, and thus it's futile to vote for a third party. I'd *LOVE* to see third parties. Big time. A moderate one to make sure the Democrats and Republicans can represent their real base, and a prominent Libertarian one to represent those like me who are sick of left, right, and center.

You have a moderate party - the Democrats. They're a moderate, centre-right party (at least under Obama). What you lack is any kind of left.

Ahhhhh hahahahahaha....moderate center-right?!!?! Good lord, be a good man and share what it is you be smoking' my perverse fellow...