Browse By

Bernard Sanders and Robert Reich To Run For White House Together?

The idea of Senator Bernie Sanders running for President is appealing in itself, but the Sanders for President 2016 watch just got a little more interesting.

robert reichThis coming Sunday, Senator Sanders is hosting a free showing of Inequality for All, a progressive economic documentary by former Secretary of Labor, and former presidential candidate, Robert Reich. Reich says, “One of the best ways to help people understand the challenges we face, is with a movie that can grab an audience and move them to action.”

What kind of action might Reich want to move Americans into?

Who would Bernard Sanders choose as a running mate?

There is now a Draft Robert Reich for President 2016 page on Facebook, to accompany the Sanders for President Facebook page.

How about a Sanders/Reich presidential campaign in 2016?

19 thoughts on “Bernard Sanders and Robert Reich To Run For White House Together?”

  1. Charles Manning says:

    Reich was one of my favorites for 2012. I was dismayed that he and several other well-credential “liberals” (I hate to use the word because the conservatives have almost succeeded in making it politically incorrect) sat back and allowed other less endowed candidates to set up their independent candidacies and claim ownership of their respective .1%’s of the electorate, at least in some of the states.

    A Reich/Sanders ticket – no matter who’s at the top – would offer the best chance of securing at least 5% of the popular vote in 2016. If the major party candidates believed the Democratic candidate could lose up to 5% to a Reich/Sanders (or Sander/Reich) ticket, there would be a big impact on discussion of the real issues, even if Reich and Sanders were excluded from the traditional – i.e., MSM – forums. Achieving 5% credibility would also encourage people to run for other high offices as independents or third party candidates. Of course, the goal should be to win, not just score 5%. But 5% would be a major victory in itself.

    Reich and Sanders, if they get together, should pit themselves against all comers in a primary different from the Democratic and Republican primaries, which are essentially a way of protecting the interests of wealthy conservatives by excluding worthy candidates and meaningful discussion from the presidential contest, including the MSM. The final debate in 2012 between Gary Johnson and Jill Stein should be a model for how this could occur. Of course, the primary should have many candidates; winnow down the total running for president/vice president to two; and insure that the losers in the primary will not continue presidential campaigns against the winners. These aspects of the major party primaries should be emulated by the alternative primary.

    Finally, if Reich and Sanders do establish a ticket, they should make designating prospective cabinet members a high priority. They should be open to the possibility of some major party “liberals” serving with them. This will help American voters understand that the insurgents are bent on destroying the control of government by the wealthy, not the government itself.

  2. J Clifford says:

    Thanks for the thoughtful comments, Charles. I’m curious if you have any thoughts about methods they could use to creating an end run around the campaign-by-cash systems established by the Democrats and Republicans.

    1. Charles Manning says:

      I’m a veteran of the 2012 Anderson campaign. Spent many hours agonizing over not having enough money to file suit in Texas to get Anderson on the ballot. Anderson and his running mate made a couple of ventures into Texas but obviously couldn’t afford to really campaign anywhere. Anderson was hobbled by the strict limits he put on campaign contributions (remember the $100 per capita limit?).

      I differ from the hard-line position. I think a reasonable amount of money is okay in politics, just as a reasonable amount of rain is okay in agriculture. There are enough wealthy people who would support Sanders/Reich to allow them to make a respectable showing. So, until the laws prohibit the kind of flood of capital we’ve seen, I don’t favor arbitrary limits on contributions to “liberal” candidates, and I would allow funding through whatever methods the major party candidates benefit from (PACs, etc.). However, there should be full disclosure of contributors and their ideological orientation, and what transpires between the contributors and the candidates before and after the contributions are made. The candidates should account in this way for all expenditures to them or that favor them, even issue ads that don’t seem to be bought by the campaigns. There should also be full disclosure of any contacts between the candidates and the media, since the MSM has such tremendous power in electoral politics through their coverage of the news. Americans should be able to read this on the Internet – not only updated and complete financial disclosures, but details of all communications between the candidates and anyone funding the candidate beyond, say, $1,000, and communications with the media. That way, the voters could find out if the candidates have sold out the way we already know the duopoly candidates have. And secret deals would be curtailed.

  3. Bill says:

    Two of my favorite people…and, therefore, doomed.

  4. Horatio says:

    Yeah, Bill, but we are doomed anyway if we get another one like Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, or Barack Obama in the White House again – which is just what will happen if we vote Republican or Democrat.

    I say that the doomed vote for the doomed.

    1. Dave says:

      Spot on, Horatio, but a Democrat or Republican we shall get. I think, however, that anyone who casts a vote for either Party in national elections is wasting a vote.

  5. Korky Day says:

    As good as those 2 might be, the reality is that they are too much like each other to make a balanced ticket, which is what attracts votes. They are both male, New Yorkers (in youth), Jews, older than 67, etc.

  6. J Clifford says:

    Yeah, what we need are all-male, all-Christian tickets, to provide balance, like what’s provided victories before! That’s the ticket!

    1. Korky Day says:

      You know I didn’t say that. One at least has to be a woman because the public mood demands it.

  7. Tom says:

    Come on people. How many times do we have to play this game before you realize nothing changes for the better no matter who you vote for? They’re all owned by the “corporatocracy.” Give it up.

    What if they gave an election and no one voted? Let’s find out.

    1. Bill says:

      The answer to your “what if” is that we’d end up with a Tea Party white house and congress. Let’s not go there.

    2. J Clifford says:

      Tom, Are you really saying that Robert Reich and Bernard Sanders are owned by the “corporatocracy”?

      Why would the corporatocracy want them working together to promote the documentary Inequality For All?

  8. Tom says:

    Corruption has an undue influence from Wall Street through the President, through Congress and to the Supreme Court. Here, listen to this half hour interview with Edward Snowden and then tell me your vote is going to change anything (back to being Constitutional):

    1. Bill says:

      Tom, I think we can all agree that the world is imperfect, since perfection is unattainable. Sometimes you can make it a little bit better. Other times, you just have to fight to keep it from becoming worse. Even if liberals’ votes can’t make Mahatma Gandhi president, they can sure as hell prevent some teabagger crazy from being put in the White House.

      Go ahead and organize a massive liberal boycott of the elections. Then, when your wife or your daughter or your girlfriend is being subjected to forced transvaginal ultrasounds, and your Arab neighbors are being marched off into internment camps, and your gay friends are being rounded up and thrown in prison, you can explain to them that a vote boycott seemed like such a good idea at the time. But hey, it was an honest mistake.

  9. Charles Manning says:

    Mistake, indeed. I agree with you, Bill.

  10. J Clifford says:

    Rationally speaking, voting for candidates doesn’t make the situation worse. Voting isn’t the problem that needs to be solved.

    It can be argued that there are flaws in the -manner- in which we vote, or in the choices that are available to us as we vote. The reasonable response to these problems, however, is to work to improve the voting system, not to walk away from it and allow it to become worse.

    Before I can agree with your decision to simply not vote, I would like to see an argument from you about how a vote for a Reich/Sanders ticket or Sanders/Reich ticket would make the current political situation worse.

  11. Bill says:

    Personally, I think both Reich and Sanders are too level-headed to launch a third-party effort. Throwing away your own vote is one thing, but throwing away several hundred thousand followers’ votes is quite another. For that, you have to be completely self-absorbed and holier-than-thou, like Ralph Nader. Neither Reich nor Sanders is that type.

    1. Korky Day says:

      It’s the holier-than-thou Democrats who are jealous of Nader’s integrity and reputation, which is why they smear him so much. Read his books. Listen to a long speech by him, not just little late-night TV chats. Much better speaker than Obama or Reich. I haven’t heard Sanders so much.

      1. Bill says:

        Don’t get me wrong, there’s a great deal I respect about Nader. It’s just that throwing elections isn’t one of those things.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Psst... what kind of person doesn't support pacifism?

Fight the Republican beast!