The 2016 US Election (Part II)

[Gaidin]

Also, considering this only came up because Clinton reneged on her promise to give Sanders another debate, she would have herself to blame if it somehow weakened her. I obviously don't want to see Clinton weakened in the general election, because fuck Donald, but really, she has a remarkable talent for self-undermining, and at some point, my sympathy is limited.

My sympathy for Bernie's complaints on her reneging is really limited. The last debate was before New York. There hasn't really been a worthwhile numbers game between them since New York to be considered. He can make noise about it all he wants. But that's all he's doing, is making noise. She legitimately pivoted after New York and while she focused on certain primary states her campaign speech style in those states has still been general election since New York. Bernie needed to get a lot more in a lot more of these primaries since New York to drag her back down to Primary-land like he did after SECTuesday.

[The Romulan Republic]

So because Sanders is unlikely to win (it remains possible, just unlikely), its okay for Clinton to break her word?

Hell, even if you think that ideally Sanders should drop out, it was arguably a stupid play by Clinton because it reinforces the impression that she is an arrogant and dishonest candidate.

Edit: I mean, what would it have really cost her to keep her damn word? If she's so sure to win, what's the risk? That it might draw out a divisive primary? That's happening anyway. Would one more debate make it that much worse, especially as opposed to refusing to debate? At least if she debated, she would appear more honest and less dismissive of Sanders and his supporters, which could actually help her.

[Gaidin]

So because Sanders is unlikely to win (it remains possible, just unlikely), its okay for Clinton to break her word?

There were literally no details worked out on the debate and nothing scheduled on the books. Just some vague 'we'll have it'. If it was scheduled it would be one thing. I've got literally no problem with her saying more important things are coming up on her schedule.

Hell, even if you think that ideally Sanders should drop out, it was arguably a stupid play by Clinton because it reinforces the impression that she is an arrogant and dishonest candidate.

Just like Bernie Sanders and the Supers? Or was that one OK? I mean, while we're calling out hypocrisy.

[The Romulan Republic]

To what, specifically are you referring regarding Sanders and super delegates?

Also, I never accused Clinton of hypocrisy (at least not in this exchange). I said arrogant and dishonest.

In any case, if Sanders was hypocritical, that doesn't erase or absolve Clinton's hypocrisy. If your best defence is "That other guy did it too", then you have no defence. At best, it comes off as you trying to shift the topic to attacking Sanders to distract from what Clinton did.

Is it the biggest deal in the world? Of course not. Their are much better things I could attack Clinton for than the debate schedule or lack thereof. But its just one more example of arrogant and dishonest/flip-flopping behaviour from her, and thus contributes to her negative image.

Probably she's worried that she'll lose California, and that that would look bad. But she'd never admit to that being the reason.

[Gaidin]

To what, specifically are you referring regarding Sanders and super delegates?

Roundabout the moment he realized he would have zero chance of breaking 2300 without supers he basically puts everybody supporting his super delegate idea in a bind.

WASHINGTON — A day after Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) lost the New York primary election that he desperately needed to win, there were no signs that he would dial back his campaign against Hillary Clinton before the Democratic convention in July.

Mark Longabaugh, a top aide to the senator, told The Huffington Post that Sanders is prepared to stay in the race even if it becomes clear that Clinton has a majority of the pledged delegates and an insurmountable lead after the final primary on June 7.

The strategy outlined by Longabaugh echoed the case made the night before by Sanders’ campaign manager, Jeff Weaver, who told MSNBC that the campaign will try to flip superdelegates away from Clinton before the convention. Neither candidate, Longabaugh argued, will have enough pledged delegates to secure the presidential nomination without the help of superdelegates. The latter officials will then have to decide which candidate gives the party the best shot to win in November. Sanders and his aides believe they have the better case.

“We intend to go to the convention and make the superdelegates vote,” Longabaugh said.

Whether overconfidence or merely a bluff, the posture of the Sanders campaign creates a delicate dynamic for Democrats hoping for a relatively quiet end to the primary season. It also puts many of Sanders’ supporters in a difficult position, since they have been the ones demanding that superdelegates stick by the candidate who heads into the convention with the most votes.

One group, MoveOn.org, has long called for superdelegates to reflect the will of the people. Asked about Sanders’ strategy, an official with the progressive organization restated that position.

“More than 380,000 MoveOn.org members have signed petitions supporting a simple principle: the Democratic nominee should be the person who wins the primaries and caucuses,” said Ben Wikler, Washington director of MoveOn.org. “MoveOn members overwhelmingly endorsed Sanders for president, and we want him to win the most pledged delegates, become the nominee, and become president.”

“But superdelegates shouldn’t overrule the will of the Democratic grassroots,” Wikler added. “If the primary and caucus winner is Hillary Clinton, then Clinton should be the nominee. If it’s Bernie Sanders, then Sanders should be the nominee.”

A Democratic candidate needs 2,383 total delegates to win the party’s nomination. Clinton currently leads Sanders 1,428 to 1,151 among pledged delegates. A source inside the Sanders campaign said they expect to close that gap with gains in states like Kentucky, Indiana, West Virginia and Oregon. They anticipate that Clinton will fall short of the needed total by anywhere from 262 to 360 pledged delegates.

At that point, Clinton would have to close the deal with the help of superdelegates. Though she currently has the support of 502 of them — to Sanders’ 38 — their votes aren’t bound. Sanders could convince them to switch sides between now and the convention’s first ballot.

Doing so would be difficult, however. For the Sanders strategy to fully succeed, the senator would have to persuade not only party insiders that he should get the nomination without having won a majority of the delegates or popular vote, but also his many supporters who think differently.

“Right now, [Democracy for America] continues to be 100% focused on helping Bernie Sanders secure the pledged delegate lead in the contests ahead. Since 2008, DFA has believed and fought to ensure that the presidential nomination is decided by the grassroots activists who vote for pledged delegates in primaries and caucuses and that’s a position we will continue to hold going forward,” said Neil Sroka, communications director for the progressive PAC.

Like Democracy for America, many other Sanders supporters have spent part of the primary season arguing that the superdelegate system, as currently constructed, is undemocratic. Maine state Rep. Diane Russell (D), a Sanders backer, is working on an amendment to the state convention rules to direct Maine’s superdelegates to vote with the results of the state’s popular election. She’s also encouraged the Democratic National Committee to do away with superdelegates in future election cycles.

“My goal has always been to ensure a fair, democratic system,” she said via email. “I believe that for 2016, Super Delegates should vote in proportion to the popular vote of the state they represent. Here in Maine, that means Bernie Sanders would get the majority. In other states, that would mean Hillary Clinton does. ... Regardless of the candidates — or my personal preference — I do not believe the Super Delegates should override the popular vote. That would be undemocratic.”

Were Russell’s suggested changes to the delegate system put in place, Clinton would very likely still win the Democratic nomination. For that reason, among others, the Clinton campaign expressed confidence Wednesday morning that Sanders’ push-it-to-the-end strategy wouldn’t constitute much of a threat.

Brian Fallon, the Clinton campaign’s press secretary, noted that no Democratic presidential candidate in modern history has won the most pledged delegates and lost the nomination.

“They are loath to reverse” the popular vote, he said of superdelegates. “It has never happened before that the superdelegates have swayed the race for someone who has finished second based on pledged delegates.”

The Clinton campaign has other reasons to believe that the superdelegates won’t desert them. They argue that polling data show Democratic voters see her as a stronger general election candidate — even if the same data show Sanders doing better in a hypothetical matchup against Donald Trump or Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas). More importantly, Clinton has institutional ties to the superdelegates that Sanders doesn’t enjoy. She’s fundraised for them and invested in many of their races for years.

Still, Clinton superdelegates will face heavy pressure in the coming weeks to reconsider. A Sanders supporter created a website originally called “Superdelegate Hit List” — later changed to “Superdelegate List” — that makes public their contact information so that people can reach them.

Alice Germond, the former DNC secretary and a longtime party activist, is committed to supporting Clinton as a Virginia superdelegate. In the last couple of weeks, she’s been receiving as many as 15 emails a day from Sanders supporters trying to convince her to switch her vote.

“Most of them are not vicious,” she said. “They only at times have a tiny bit of edge of threatening, ‘Why don’t you’ and ‘you shouldn’t’ and ‘how dare you.’ But that comes with the territory.”

I mean, I'm not exactly worried about his hypocrisy given the closest Primary ever, the supers sided with the winner of the pledged delegates even though they could've overruled the winner. But that part I emphasized. Yea. That's some fun stuff.

Also, I never accused Clinton of hypocrisy (at least not in this exchange). I said arrogant and dishonest.

It's not arrogant and dishonest to change your schedule based on events as they develop. Dude that's how the world I live in works. Let's be clear again, that debate wasn't even scheduled. And in my real world, fully scheduled meetings and often events are get canceled for a variety of reasons. Bernie's not a special boy just because he has a microphone. He's losing. Reality is catching up to him.

They gave the mouse a cookie, he's tried to get a glass of milk and been told no, but he keeps screaming like he is, he may find that cookie taken away from him and the Dems may risk what he does in retaliation.

In any case, if Sanders was hypocritical, that doesn't erase or absolve Clinton's hypocrisy. If your best defence is "That other guy did it too", then you have no defence. At best, it comes off as you trying to shift the topic to attacking Sanders to distract from what Clinton did.

No. My defense is "Come back to reality TRR, we want you here!". Read above for more.

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, I do think it would be wrong and hypocritical for Sanders to try to get the super delegates to overturn the pledged delegates/popular vote, unless their was a really major reason like said lead being clearly fraudulent or Clinton being indicted.

Hell, I've said before, I believe, that I tend to favour Sanders dropping out if he doesn't have the pledged delegate lead after the DC primary.

[maraxus2]

I'm still unclear what exactly Sanders supporters want to get out of this debate. If it's free media attention, then fine. Just say so. But if you think that the debate is going to close the gap between Hillary and Bernie in a whole crop of important states, then you're just being delusional.

There is literally no earthly reason why Hillary should debate Bernie when the primary will be over in nine days. I fully expect the major news networks to declare Clinton the presumptive nominee as soon as NJ's polls close, and I fully expect to hear TRR whining about it on here afterwards.

[maraxus2]

To boot, what he does say, an often, is his dislike of Sanders for being in effect a DINO. The only way to be POTUS at this time is via one of the two parties so being so mad at Sanders for 'pretending' to be a Democrat is just weird. Each of the two parties only represent roughly 30% of the population with the other 40% being 'independents', although that doesn't make that 40% a monolithic group. That Flagg continually hits this point while not slamming the current system that would make some of the 40% actual use one of the two parties as a vehicle to get elected instead of the just the parties using the 40% to get elected.

Again, I think you have that 40% backasswards. Most independents do have a partisan lean, so they're not exactly craving something new outside of the two party system. It's really more of a lack of strong partisanship. That's why you occasionally see minor parties crop up in places where the partisan system isn't terribly strong. Look at Vermont and it's extra parties.

You don't tend to see that elsewhere for a lot of reasons, but in part because there's no major appetite for it. People may whinge about how the two party system doesn't give them a real choice, but that whining isn't really reflected in their voting behavior.

[Knife]

I said that the 40% are not a monolithic block. The only thing they do have in common is not being apart of one of the two parties. And their voting strategies are, align with one of the two major parties. I feel pretty confident I've brought that point up in this thread.

[maraxus2]

But what you said earlier isn't true. Just because roughly 40% of the voters aren't Democratic doesn't mean that Democrats don't represent them, especially if they consistently vote for Democrats in every election. A lot of them also have a degree of partisanship in common, even if they don't share a partisan identity.

My point is that, contrary your claim, partisan independents do use the existing system to get elected. They're Democrats in every way apart from registration. When they want to run for office, they finally register and take advantage of the vast political machinery set up to elect them. Sanders would be the most obvious example of this.

I see no reason why this is a bad thing. I'm not sure what justification there is to use one Party's electoral machinery and yet be separate from the party as a whole.

[Knife]

I think we're talking past each other. I don't care that independents use the system to get elected because as fucked up as the system is, it's the one in place. I would hope that an independent would get in and assist in changing the system to something that makes sense and is functional. One of the issues I have with Flagg is he is so mad at someone like Sanders coming into the party so he can run and I find that weird. The way a lot of establishment Dems are acting, though, is that liberal independents are only good to vote for Dems but the idea of signing up as a dem to actual drag them towards one of the independent ideals is abhorrent to them. Or in short, just vote for our candidates but don't be part of our group.

That is the impression a lot of independents get.

[Gaidin]

I think we're talking past each other. I don't care that independents use the system to get elected because as fucked up as the system is, it's the one in place. I would hope that an independent would get in and assist in changing the system to something that makes sense and is functional. One of the issues I have with Flagg is he is so mad at someone like Sanders coming into the party so he can run and I find that weird. The way a lot of establishment Dems are acting, though, is that liberal independents are only good to vote for Dems but the idea of signing up as a dem to actual drag them towards one of the independent ideals is abhorrent to them. Or in short, just vote for our candidates but don't be part of our group.

That is the impression a lot of independents get.

Forget the fact that Bernie has admitted to registering D for the sake of press. That's been at least somewhat welcomed by the campaigning party member of the board that actually seems to know how the system works from the posts I've read. What seems to be awkward for Bernie are the outright hostile reactions to losing in the past week or two and being shocked that no Democrat will support him when he publicly screams at them.

Really? Really?!

Dude's burning bridges and napalming the remains.

[The Romulan Republic]

Show where Sanders has "publicly screamed" at Democrats simply because he's losing.

And no, Nevada caucuses don't count. First, because the outrage their was not simply over losing, however desperately some Clinton supporters want to paint it that way, but over the way the Nevada Democratic Party officials rewrote the rules and basically dismissed any objections by Sanders supporters, and second, because even if you insist that the Nevada Democratic Party is as pure as the driven snow, the actions of some Sanders supporters are not the same as the actions of Sanders himself.

If anything, Sanders himself has gone after Trump more than Clinton of late, from what I've seen. He's also largely avoided going after her on the emails, which if he were really the bitter egotist bent on destroying the Democratic Party that some wish to paint him as, he wouldn't.

[Gaidin]

Show where Sanders has "publicly screamed" at Democrats simply because he's losing.

If you can't grasp the subtle concept of an analogy there is no help for you on this earth. Go away.

[The Romulan Republic]

First of all, their was no possible way for me to know that you meant that non-literary. After all, much more absurd falsehoods have been said about Sanders with utter seriousness by his detractors.

Secondly, even if you mean it non-literarly, how is Sanders (not some of his supporters, but Sanders himself) being particularly hostile to the Democrats? He's called out corruption in the primary process. Are you really going to pretend that their is none? He's criticized some Democrats for taking big money. Well of course he has- that's one of the foundations of his whole political philosophy, and good for him. It has nothing to do with weather he's winning or not. He's fighting it out to the end. Possibly ill-advised, but its hard for me to fault him for continuing at least until all the primary votes have been held and all the voters have been heard, as he promised to do.

His campaign has said that he will remain a Democrat and endorse Clinton if she is the nominee. To my knowledge, they have not recanted that. He hasn't even ruled out being Clinton's VP if asked (not that I expect him to be). Yeah, real hostile.

In any case, for every nasty thing he has said about the Democrats, I could find one Clinton has said about him.

You call it an analogy, but what you were actually engaging in was hyperbole.

That, and you're just being an asshole to cover for the fact that you have no real argument.

[Gaidin]

First of all, their was no possible way for me to know that you meant that non-literary. After all, much more absurd falsehoods have been said about Sanders with utter seriousness by his detractors.

Yea and when I say the DNC told Bernie to fuck off with his demands I mean they literally told him to fuck off, am I right? Or is that an analogy as well? Which is it now?

[The Romulan Republic]

Oh for fuck's sake.

This is one of the most petty arguments I've ever seen (are you really going to try to have a lengthy argument to try to "prove" that I'm literally incapable of understanding an analogy rather than admit that you were unclear?).

Frankly, this is a waste of my time.

[maraxus2]

I think we're talking past each other. I don't care that independents use the system to get elected because as fucked up as the system is, it's the one in place. I would hope that an independent would get in and assist in changing the system to something that makes sense and is functional. One of the issues I have with Flagg is he is so mad at someone like Sanders coming into the party so he can run and I find that weird. The way a lot of establishment Dems are acting, though, is that liberal independents are only good to vote for Dems but the idea of signing up as a dem to actual drag them towards one of the independent ideals is abhorrent to them. Or in short, just vote for our candidates but don't be part of our group.

That is the impression a lot of independents get.

Obviously I dont agree with that assessment of establishment dems, but I see where you're coming from. I think there's a lot of resentment towards Bernie because he spent so much time openly and proudly avoiding the Democrats, even in Vermont where his presence at the top of the ticket is useful. Vermont Democrats broadly support just about everything in Bernie's agenda, even if their ideological basis for doing so is much less democratically socialist than Bernie himself. That Bernie was, for a time anyway, actively feeding into the notion that Hillary's wins were fundamentally illegitimate did not help him on that front, and fed into a long-standing gripe that national Dems have with him. Namely that his much-vaunted independence is really an accident of political geography, not so much about his idealism. Bernie Sanders would not be possible anywhere outside of Vermont. Yet he was going around using his unique political career as a template for other Dems when that's really not an option for them.

As far as having influence goes, I think there's an ideological case to be made that only party members should have a direct influence on the Party's direction. But I think there's an even stronger practical case to be made here; nothing influences the direction of a party more than having a loyal bloc of voters within a party that can consistently push their influence. Speaking from personal experience, a campaign that's polling over the electoral finish line (usually 50%+1 of the vote) generally will not reach out to other constituencies and will focus all of their efforts in shoring up their existing support. They generally only push for other constituencies when there is something fatally flawed with the existing coalition (Dems not showing up, weakness among certain ethnic votes, etc). Most of my campaigns never had aggressive outreach to pure independents, since they could not be relied upon to vote for a Democratic candidate. For the most part, we don't reach out the weak Dem independents for the same reason. Instead, we focus pretty much exclusively on registered Dems and strong Dem independents. Those are the constituents who can be relied upon, and those voters are the ones who shape a Rep's policy positions.

Flagg's complaint about Sanders' party loyalty ties into a complain that I hear often from party Democrats (Republicans too, for that matter), namely that the Party ought not necessarily welcome with open arms a candidate with squishy party loyalty. Sometimes you don't have much of a choice; the Dems didn't have that luxury with guys like Bobby Bright, mainly because white Dems with any kind of profile were in short supply in Southeastern Alabama (they're practically extinct now). But most party activists would chose a long-standing member of the Party over a recent convert. There are any number of reasons for this, some of them justified and many of them squishy.

[Knife]

Obviously I dont agree with that assessment of establishment dems, but I see where you're coming from. I think there's a lot of resentment towards Bernie because he spent so much time openly and proudly avoiding the Democrats, even in Vermont where his presence at the top of the ticket is useful. Vermont Democrats broadly support just about everything in Bernie's agenda, even if their ideological basis for doing so is much less democratically socialist than Bernie himself. That Bernie was, for a time anyway, actively feeding into the notion that Hillary's wins were fundamentally illegitimate did not help him on that front, and fed into a long-standing gripe that national Dems have with him. Namely that his much-vaunted independence is really an accident of political geography, not so much about his idealism. Bernie Sanders would not be possible anywhere outside of Vermont. Yet he was going around using his unique political career as a template for other Dems when that's really not an option for them.

I have no problem with that. A lot of hard blue areas wouldn't have a Sanders there, nor would purple or red.

As far as having influence goes, I think there's an ideological case to be made that only party members should have a direct influence on the Party's direction. But I think there's an even stronger practical case to be made here; nothing influences the direction of a party more than having a loyal bloc of voters within a party that can consistently push their influence. Speaking from personal experience, a campaign that's polling over the electoral finish line (usually 50%+1 of the vote) generally will not reach out to other constituencies and will focus all of their efforts in shoring up their existing support. They generally only push for other constituencies when there is something fatally flawed with the existing coalition (Dems not showing up, weakness among certain ethnic votes, etc). Most of my campaigns never had aggressive outreach to pure independents, since they could not be relied upon to vote for a Democratic candidate. For the most part, we don't reach out the weak Dem independents for the same reason. Instead, we focus pretty much exclusively on registered Dems and strong Dem independents. Those are the constituents who can be relied upon, and those voters are the ones who shape a Rep's policy positions.

That is fine except for two things.

1) For POTUS there is no other path right now but through one of the two parties.
2) In a lot of places the parties require the independent blocks for a winning ticket in a general election.

Flagg's complaint about Sanders' party loyalty ties into a complain that I hear often from party Democrats (Republicans too, for that matter), namely that the Party ought not necessarily welcome with open arms a candidate with squishy party loyalty. Sometimes you don't have much of a choice; the Dems didn't have that luxury with guys like Bobby Bright, mainly because white Dems with any kind of profile were in short supply in Southeastern Alabama (they're practically extinct now). But most party activists would chose a long-standing member of the Party over a recent convert. There are any number of reasons for this, some of them justified and many of them squishy.

Wouldn't be a problem if as a nation we broke up this ridiculous system of only two private organizations being able to run a viable candidate. Part of my complaint about it is that if the system wasn't so fucked up and you didn't need to go either D or R to run for POTUS then Sanders wouldn't even need to play this game, but to then be mad that he played the game is just absurd. I'm surprised the Constitutional party of the Libertarian party hasn't tried to sue and break up the big two as a monopoly. Well maybe not the Libertarians since that would be against their creed but...

[Flagg]

I think we're talking past each other. I don't care that independents use the system to get elected because as fucked up as the system is, it's the one in place. I would hope that an independent would get in and assist in changing the system to something that makes sense and is functional. One of the issues I have with Flagg is he is so mad at someone like Sanders coming into the party so he can run and I find that weird. The way a lot of establishment Dems are acting, though, is that liberal independents are only good to vote for Dems but the idea of signing up as a dem to actual drag them towards one of the independent ideals is abhorrent to them. Or in short, just vote for our candidates but don't be part of our group.

That is the impression a lot of independents get.

Forget the fact that Bernie has admitted to registering D for the sake of press. That's been at least somewhat welcomed by the campaigning party member of the board that actually seems to know how the system works from the posts I've read. What seems to be awkward for Bernie are the outright hostile reactions to losing in the past week or two and being shocked that no Democrat will support him when he publicly screams at them.

Really? Really?!

Dude's burning bridges and napalming the remains.

This, exactly this. He wants the nomination of a party he clearly has distain for. And shock, most democrats aren't buying what he's selling so he's trying to throw a wrench into the whole operation, which if successful, means President Trump is sworn into office January 20, 2017. If the stakes weren't so high, his trolling wouldn't be so fucking annoying. If he were winning primaries by double digits consistently, his political whoredom wouldn't be such an issue.

[Flagg]

Frankly, this is a waste of my time.

Says everyone responding to you in this thread.

[The Romulan Republic]

Ooh, a contentless, substanceless, unprovoked insult. Classic Flagg.

As to your previous post, are you actually suggesting that Sanders is trying to make Dickless Donald President?

Also, if Sanders is "burning bridges", what the hell are Clinton supporters doing when they systematically vilify Sanders and anyone who supports him? What was the Nevada Democratic Party doing when they falsely accused the Sanders campaign-not some random supporters but the campaign itself-of causing violence? You don't effectively call someone a terrorist if you want unity with them. Not if you have something resembling a brain, anyway. Why is the burden of responsibility for unity supposed to be entirely on Sanders? Did Clinton getting slightly more than half the votes/pledged delegates thus far mean that she had no responsibility to reach out to the nearly 45% of primary voters thus far who didn't vote for her?

It seems to me that when people say "unity", what they often really mean is more like "Shut up, go away, get in line, and do what we tell you." That's not asking for unity, its demanding subservience.

Unity, real unity, suggests to me a give and take, and mutual respect.

As I've said before, I will support Clinton if she is the nominee to stop Dickless Donald. I expect other Sanders supporters to do the same, both to stop the Republicans and to ensure the long-term strength and influence of the movement. However, unity should go both ways.

I fully expect a tirade of ugly and semi-coherent personal attacks in response to this, and if that's all I get, I won't bother to respond, but I'd honestly like to know what the hell is unreasonable about any of the above.

[Flagg]

No, I don't think Sanders wants Trump to win, I just don't think he cares much about anything past his own ambitions, like most politicians. But since he can't win the primary, what reason does he have to not sit down and shut up, realistically? To give dolts like you false hope?

[maraxus2]

That is fine except for two things.

1) For POTUS there is no other path right now but through one of the two parties.
2) In a lot of places the parties require the independent blocks for a winning ticket in a general election.

Wouldn't be a problem if as a nation we broke up this ridiculous system of only two private organizations being able to run a viable candidate. Part of my complaint about it is that if the system wasn't so fucked up and you didn't need to go either D or R to run for POTUS then Sanders wouldn't even need to play this game, but to then be mad that he played the game is just absurd. I'm surprised the Constitutional party of the Libertarian party hasn't tried to sue and break up the big two as a monopoly. Well maybe not the Libertarians since that would be against their creed but...

See, I see this as a feature, not a bug. Our whole political system is run extremely inefficiently, but I'm not sure how having multiple parties within the present system would make it run better. If we had a parliament and/or weakened federal system and/or fewer states, having multiple parties would make way more sense. But we don't, and I don't see how having more parties would be more "representative" within our political system.

Instead, we have a political system that gives one of the two major parties an incentive to eat a smaller, more narrowly-focused party. This is what happened to the Populists, the Progressives, the States Rights Party, and the other minor parties that have cropped up over the last 100 years. This is also generally what happens when smaller parties develop at the state level. It's hard to argue that the Minnesota Farmer-Labor party would have been more effective had they not merged with the Democrats back in the 40's. Remaining sectional would have made them irrelevant. And this is the basic reality of the two-party system; it's not that the Dems and the GOP exist because they have a monopoly on power (although they clearly do, and they do try to screw third parties where possible), but because no other party is as likely to be as broadly representative as either of those two.

Again, this strikes me as a feature, not a bug. The Dems are already basically a collection of interest groups, and adding more interest groups to their coalition can only make them stronger, not weaker.

[The Romulan Republic]

No, I don't think Sanders wants Trump to win, I just don't think he cares much about anything past his own ambitions, like most politicians. But since he can't win the primary, what reason does he have to not sit down and shut up, realistically? To give dolts like you false hope?

Okay, first of all, I really disagree with the "Ambitious Sanders" narrative.

Let's be honest here. One does not wait until they are in their mid-seventies to run for President, then run as a socialist in a primary that's considered pretty much a foregone conclusion from the start, for the sake of ambition.

No, Sanders is more of a crusader, a believer in the cause. That isn't necessarily a good thing, as it can lead to narrow-mindedness and refusal to compromise when you need to, but its a very different motivation than the one you are ascribing to him.

Anyway, I can think of a number of reason for him to stay in, including:

1. Its possible, theoretically, for him to win. Very unlikely, but possible. It may also be that he gives the possibility of a Clinton indictment more credence than you do, and wants to keep his name in as a viable replacement if she is unable to run.

2. He has long said that every state should have a chance to vote, and that to that end he would stay in until all the primaries were held. So he's actually keeping his word here, and reinforcing his messages about democracy and voter turnout.

3. He wants to get as many delegates as possible to wield more influence at the convention and build the strength of his movement.

4. Staying in keeps his supporters engaged, keeps their enthusiasm going, rather than petering out.

5. He right now has a very public platform to advocate the things he believes in, the likes of which he never had until the past year or so.

And that attitude, that Sanders should "sit down and shut up", is part of the problem here. Its very much in keeping with the attitude of many Clinton supporters, I think. They don't want unity, in the sense of bringing Sanders on board and working with him to achieve common goals. They want him to disappear. It is that dismissal, that palpable lack of respect, in part, that is so off-putting to many Sanders supporters.