Goose wrote:

Just Fred wrote:

AAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!

It's not about winning votes and delegates to win the nomination!  It's about winning votes and delegates to demonstrate to the D-Tribe that his message is important to the future of the tribe itself.

 
Bernie has said this?
After congratulating Clinton on winning the nomination?
I didn't see anything like that in the email.

It is in what Fred posted. 

Bernie, the fight is over.
He needs to talk in terms of negotiating NOT fighting.
There is a BIG DIFFERENCE. 

Here is one more source of the statement. 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/08/politics/bernie-sanders-2016-election/index.html

 

Last edited by tennyson (6/08/2016 12:26 pm)

Here's my argument. Sanders has been fiercely independent his entire career. Then, about five minutes before running for President he becomes a democrat (because it was more advantageous for him than running as an independent), and then immediately starts complaining that the democratic party rules aren't set up completely to his liking. If you want to be a democrat, and you want to change the party, then put some time into the effort.

It wasn't more advantageous than running as an independent, it was necessary because it's impossible to run as an independent. 

In Pennsylvania for example, to run for Senate as a R or D, you need 1000 signatures on a petition. If you want to run as an independent, you need over 50,000. And if you are able to get all those signatures, you go straight to court because the D's and R's challenge all of the signatures, one by one, until you run out of time and money to ya'know, campaign for the office you are running for. 

Sanders clearly aligns with Democrats far more than republicans so there was no issue in my opinion with him running as a Dem. If wants to use his platform to improve the Dem party, I'm ok with that.

Curious  WHAT improvements you both would suggest ? 

I for one would like to see causes done away with. Just go with popular vote in all primaries. It was strange that in Washington Bernie won the majority of the delegates which were awarded in the caucus, but lost the popular vote when they had it big time. Washington is one of those strange states that have BOTH, but the caucuses determine the delegates awarded. 

Also do you believe States should be allowed to have different rules for their primaries ? 

In general, I like the notion of Registered Independents being able to vote in a Primary. 

In terms of like in PA with the 50,000 registered voters needed to run, well, groups like the Libertarians I believe are registered in ALL 50 states. I don't like necessarily that it is a higher number for any one group, however. IF 1,000 is all that is needed for a party it should be for ANY party. 

The Super delegates are a farce for BOTH the R and D tribes, but worse for the Dems. Do away with them and go popular vote only. In the current Dem Primary it would not have made any difference even if that was the case, but I believe that to be the most fair of all ways. 

All the rest of the Sanders vs Clinton stances, I think they are more alike than different. 

The notion of getting money out of politics is a good one, BUT it ain't gonna' happen as they say. Maybe more transparency of just where the money comes from.

Just Fred wrote:

I agree with much of what you have to say, Tennyson, but I don't think the R-tribe has a super delegate system.

The Super delegates are a farce for BOTH the R and D tribes. 

You are correct. 
 

Goose wrote:

I dunno.
Kinda wish the GOP had about a thousand super delegates this year.

Really? I mean, let's consider this year an aberration. Trump is a once in a lifetime nominee who will be dispatched with quickly in November.

Should we really encourage, in a two party system, that the bigwigs in those parties get to tilt the scales to the candidate who does the best job of winning them over?