Campaign 2016

[filledeplage]

Well, it's safe to say that Sanders is finished. Which greatly disappoints me, since he is someone I greatly admire - for what he has done and what he stands for. He would have made a spectacular President, and would have certainly curb-stomped Trump. But it's time to accept reality

I feel somewhat the same except I am surprised he made it as far as he did. Personally, if we can look positively on the situation, he has probably achieved his greatest accomplishment, which was to demonstrate how there is a popular movement out there that genuinely want positive change. With any luck, now, people will realize that they are not alone and that they can belong to a movement which can put significant pressure on political power, if they are organized and unified. Again, genuine change must happen at the level of popular grassroots activism, not at the level of political power, if it is going to have a genuinely positive and lasting effect. That Sanders has potentially motivated and mobilized the population is far more important than anything he could have done at the political level.

CSM - I guess my biggest problem is the unbridled arrogance and the attitude of being above the law.  Sanders did ignite the same rage against the system where the system is indeed rigged.  On the even of the election it was announced by a news outlet that "Hilary had the delegates."  This was prospective and anticipatory.  It was calculated to discourage the Sanders voters from coming out to vote.  Low turnout helped her and hurt Bernie. Sanders should not give up.  She may still be indicted and prosecuted unless it is being fixed by Obama.

Her computer guy is or has submitted his immunity agreement "under seal" so there is no transparency in the government to prosecute on the email server, and other violations.  

http://dailercaller.com/2016/06/07/clinton-surrogate-says-superdelagates-are-intended-to-temper-the-raging-masses-video/  

This is an attempt to "substitute the judgment" of delegates for the voters.  Who do they think they are? This system is being held up to scrutiny and rightly so, I think, to challenge the power of these power brokers who can "horse trade" votes at the convention.  It usurps the power of the citizen.  Whether they are Sanders or Trump supporters, it is the realization that the voting process is a joke.  Hillary was burned by it in 2008, (the delegates issue) and now she is burning a fellow Dem. It was a top-down election which was imposed upon the citizens.     

That kind of attitude has given life to the major revolt in both major parties.  You can't tell the difference between the two as both have built out a structure of lobbyists and power bases in DC who run the show, and control the votes, monetarily.  Both parties have an internal and incestuous (a metaphor) structure.  The old-GOP would not cry if Hillary was elected.  She was raised Republican.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Well, it's safe to say that Sanders is finished. Which greatly disappoints me, since he is someone I greatly admire - for what he has done and what he stands for. He would have made a spectacular President, and would have certainly curb-stomped Trump. But it's time to accept reality

I feel somewhat the same except I am surprised he made it as far as he did. Personally, if we can look positively on the situation, he has probably achieved his greatest accomplishment, which was to demonstrate how there is a popular movement out there that genuinely want positive change. With any luck, now, people will realize that they are not alone and that they can belong to a movement which can put significant pressure on political power, if they are organized and unified. Again, genuine change must happen at the level of popular grassroots activism, not at the level of political power, if it is going to have a genuinely positive and lasting effect. That Sanders has potentially motivated and mobilized the population is far more important than anything he could have done at the political level.

CSM - I guess my biggest problem is the unbridled arrogance and the attitude of being above the law.  Sanders did ignite the same rage against the system where the system is indeed rigged.  On the even of the election it was announced by a news outlet that "Hilary had the delegates."  This was prospective and anticipatory.  It was calculated to discourage the Sanders voters from coming out to vote.  Low turnout helped her and hurt Bernie. Sanders should not give up.  She may still be indicted and prosecuted unless it is being fixed by Obama.

Her computer guy is or has submitted his immunity agreement "under seal" so there is no transparency in the government to prosecute on the email server, and other violations.   

http://dailercaller.com/2016/06/07/clinton-surrogate-says-superdelagates-are-intended-to-temper-the-raging-masses-video/   

That kind of attitude has given life to the major revolt in both major parties.  You can't tell the difference between the two as both have built out a structure of lobbyists and power bases in DC who run the show, and control the votes, monetarily.  Both parties have an internal and incestuous (a metaphor) structure.  The old-GOP would not cry if Hillary was elected.  She was raised Republican.

I would have liked to have seen Sanders elected but I would have worried that it would have sent the wrong message: that serious political change can occur simply by pulling a lever every four years. No matter who wins the election: be it Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, or whoever you want to name, their winning will not create necessary change, simply by virtue of the fact that there mere act of voting someone into power reinforces the very power dynamic that needs to be changed. That's not to say that voting isn't important, and that who comes into power isn't important. Indeed it is crucial at this point to simply vote in opposition to Trump who represents a genuinely tragic danger to the country and the rest of the world, and potentially, in the long term, the survival of the species, as does the Republican party in general. The Democratic party represents a danger too but a far less dramatic danger. Nevertheless, while voting is important and who comes into power is important, it is of secondary importance to genuine systemic change, which can't be achieved through voting someone into power, since that reinforces the system.

We also, I think, disagree on what Sanders has achieved. In my view, his achievement was not that he ignited a rage against a rigged system. That, to me, is rather trivial, since it's a question of focusing on the powerful (who gets to be President amongst privileged people). Rather, in my opinion, his achievement was to demonstrate the the public's large scale opposition to systemic inequality. I suppose you can say he pointed out some "rigging" in the same that US system is rigged to privilege and protect an extraordinarily small section of the population, that of concentrated wealth and power.

[filledeplage]

Well, it's safe to say that Sanders is finished. Which greatly disappoints me, since he is someone I greatly admire - for what he has done and what he stands for. He would have made a spectacular President, and would have certainly curb-stomped Trump. But it's time to accept reality

I feel somewhat the same except I am surprised he made it as far as he did. Personally, if we can look positively on the situation, he has probably achieved his greatest accomplishment, which was to demonstrate how there is a popular movement out there that genuinely want positive change. With any luck, now, people will realize that they are not alone and that they can belong to a movement which can put significant pressure on political power, if they are organized and unified. Again, genuine change must happen at the level of popular grassroots activism, not at the level of political power, if it is going to have a genuinely positive and lasting effect. That Sanders has potentially motivated and mobilized the population is far more important than anything he could have done at the political level.

CSM - I guess my biggest problem is the unbridled arrogance and the attitude of being above the law.  Sanders did ignite the same rage against the system where the system is indeed rigged.  On the even of the election it was announced by a news outlet that "Hilary had the delegates."  This was prospective and anticipatory.  It was calculated to discourage the Sanders voters from coming out to vote.  Low turnout helped her and hurt Bernie. Sanders should not give up.  She may still be indicted and prosecuted unless it is being fixed by Obama.

Her computer guy is or has submitted his immunity agreement "under seal" so there is no transparency in the government to prosecute on the email server, and other violations.   

http://dailercaller.com/2016/06/07/clinton-surrogate-says-superdelagates-are-intended-to-temper-the-raging-masses-video/   

That kind of attitude has given life to the major revolt in both major parties.  You can't tell the difference between the two as both have built out a structure of lobbyists and power bases in DC who run the show, and control the votes, monetarily.  Both parties have an internal and incestuous (a metaphor) structure.  The old-GOP would not cry if Hillary was elected.  She was raised Republican.

I would have liked to have seen Sanders elected but I would have worried that it would have sent the wrong message: that serious political change can occur simply by pulling a lever every four years. No matter who wins the election: be it Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, or whoever you want to name, their winning will not create necessary change, simply by virtue of the fact that there mere act of voting someone into power reinforces the very power dynamic that needs to be changed. That's not to say that voting isn't important, and that who comes into power isn't important. Indeed it is crucial at this point to simply vote in opposition to Trump who represents a genuinely tragic danger to the country and the rest of the world, and potentially, in the long term, the survival of the species, as does the Republican party in general. The Democratic party represents a danger too but a far less dramatic danger. Nevertheless, while voting is important and who comes into power is important, it is of secondary importance to genuine systemic change, which can't be achieved through voting someone into power, since that reinforces the system.

We also, I think, disagree on what Sanders has achieved. In my view, his achievement was not that he ignited a rage against a rigged system. That, to me, is rather trivial, since it's a question of focusing on the powerful (who gets to be President amongst privileged people). Rather, in my opinion, his achievement was to demonstrate the the public's large scale opposition to systemic inequality. I suppose you can say he pointed out some "rigging" in the same that US system is rigged to privilege and protect an extraordinarily small section of the population, that of concentrated wealth and power.

Sanders is not out yet.  Hillary and the news sources have "counted their chickens before they have hatched." The announcement of the delegate count was the night before the election, assuming the commitment of convention votes before the last group of primaries. 

Bernie catalyzed young people who are paralyzed and trapped by college debt.  Within the last decade or so, there have been some "creative" ways conceived to "forgive college debt" by going into the Peace Corps, or working in a non-profit anti poverty agency or some governmental group that will confer loan forgiveness with service in some designated agency.  He has captured the attention of young foot soldiers which is a prize in any campaign.  Late teens and early 20 year olds who can ring doorbells, carry signs, act as poll workers, make phone calls at phone banks, stand out at traffic stops at peak hours, stuff envelopes, and whatever other entry-level work needs doing.  One's field operation on the ground ready to run is everything and Bernie has this as a result of his attraction to these young students.

They have found a voice in Bernie who agrees that there is a certain enslavement with college debt that is connected to banks and other financial institutions which have been given a pass with corrupt practices. 

Trump has done the same with another population who feel the same lack of empowerment.  Funny, what they have in common is the support for the 2nd Amendment and becoming figureheads for a population who has little faith in their government, none in the press, who are back-channelled into the mega-corps, who are the multi-national cartels who fix oil prices, energy prices, and the commodities.  So, it is not as transparent as it should be and many people want and are finally demanding accountability from their government officials who are supposed to work for the people and not "be in business for themselves."

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Sanders is not out yet.  Hillary and the news sources have "counted their chickens before they have hatched." The announcement of the delegate count was the night before the election, assuming the commitment of convention votes before the last group of primaries. 

Bernie catalyzed young people who are paralyzed and trapped by college debt.  Within the last decade or so, there have been some "creative" ways conceived to "forgive college debt" by going into the Peace Corps, or working in a non-profit anti poverty agency or some governmental group that will confer loan forgiveness with service in some designated agency.  He has captured the attention of young foot soldiers which is a prize in any campaign.  Late teens and early 20 year olds who can ring doorbells, carry signs, act as poll workers, make phone calls at phone banks, stand out at traffic stops at peak hours, stuff envelopes, and whatever other entry-level work needs doing.  One's field operation on the ground ready to run is everything and Bernie has this as a result of his attraction to these young students.

They have found a voice in Bernie who agrees that there is a certain enslavement with college debt that is connected to banks and other financial institutions which have been given a pass with corrupt practices. 

Trump has done the same with another population who feel the same lack of empowerment.  Funny, what they have in common is the support for the 2nd Amendment and becoming figureheads for a population who has little faith in their government, none in the press, who are back-channelled into the mega-corps, who are the multi-national cartels who fix oil prices, energy prices, and the commodities.  So, it is not as transparent as it should be and many people want and are finally demanding accountability from their government officials who are supposed to work for the people and not "be in business for themselves."

Again, and here I'm repeating myself, I think Sanders has accomplished more than catalyzing young people enslaved by debt. I think that college debt is an important issue and one fairly easily solved by eliminating the profit-motive from higher education. But Sanders' accomplishments are greater than getting young people to speak on his behalf (if I am correctly understanding your post; forgive me if I'm not). Again, I think this would be problematic if this were his greatest accomplishment since this would by and large reinforce the very problematic power structure that is in place right now. As I've said before, we are by and large indoctrinated into thinking that movements require leaders and we are indoctrinated into thinking this because a system that relies on dominance, coercion, and exploitation requires people to believe and accept that leaders are necessary in order for change to occur. If we are to ever get away from these sorts of systems, then we have to dispel with this mythology. Sanders's greatest accomplishment, then, could be to have planted the seeds for this sort of realization, and this is something that he could have never achieved as President.

Sanders and Trump are in fact quite different on the issue of the 2nd amendment with Sanders outright pledging to ban semi-automatic assault weapons and Trump saying virtually nothing of substance on the issue other than a few meaningless sound bytes (though what little he has said on the issue flies in the face of reality). It is true that people believe that Trump is going against the system but that is because a good deal of the population has become propagandized into not knowing power structure of the country. Quite unfortunately, these people would be in for a rude awakening if Trump were to ever tragically become President were it not for his ability to re-direct genuine problems onto popular scapegoats, which has been his one genuine accomplishment in his farce of an election campaign.

[filledeplage]

Sanders is not out yet.  Hillary and the news sources have "counted their chickens before they have hatched." The announcement of the delegate count was the night before the election, assuming the commitment of convention votes before the last group of primaries. 

Bernie catalyzed young people who are paralyzed and trapped by college debt.  Within the last decade or so, there have been some "creative" ways conceived to "forgive college debt" by going into the Peace Corps, or working in a non-profit anti poverty agency or some governmental group that will confer loan forgiveness with service in some designated agency.  He has captured the attention of young foot soldiers which is a prize in any campaign.  Late teens and early 20 year olds who can ring doorbells, carry signs, act as poll workers, make phone calls at phone banks, stand out at traffic stops at peak hours, stuff envelopes, and whatever other entry-level work needs doing.  One's field operation on the ground ready to run is everything and Bernie has this as a result of his attraction to these young students.

They have found a voice in Bernie who agrees that there is a certain enslavement with college debt that is connected to banks and other financial institutions which have been given a pass with corrupt practices. 

Trump has done the same with another population who feel the same lack of empowerment.  Funny, what they have in common is the support for the 2nd Amendment and becoming figureheads for a population who has little faith in their government, none in the press, who are back-channelled into the mega-corps, who are the multi-national cartels who fix oil prices, energy prices, and the commodities.  So, it is not as transparent as it should be and many people want and are finally demanding accountability from their government officials who are supposed to work for the people and not "be in business for themselves."

Again, and here I'm repeating myself, I think Sanders has accomplished more than catalyzing young people enslaved by debt. I think that college debt is an important issue and one fairly easily solved by eliminating the profit-motive from higher education. But Sanders' accomplishments are greater than getting young people to speak on his behalf (if I am correctly understanding your post; forgive me if I'm not). Again, I think this would be problematic if this were his greatest accomplishment since this would by and large reinforce the very problematic power structure that is in place right now. As I've said before, we are by and large indoctrinated into thinking that movements require leaders and we are indoctrinated into thinking this because a system that relies on dominance, coercion, and exploitation requires people to believe and accept that leaders are necessary in order for change to occur. If we are to ever get away from these sorts of systems, then we have to dispel with this mythology. Sanders's greatest accomplishment, then, could be to have planted the seeds for this sort of realization, and this is something that he could have never achieved as President.

Sanders and Trump are in fact quite different on the issue of the 2nd amendment with Sanders outright pledging to ban semi-automatic assault weapons and Trump saying virtually nothing of substance on the issue other than a few meaningless sound bytes (though what little he has said on the issue flies in the face of reality). It is true that people believe that Trump is going against the system but that is because a good deal of the population has become propagandized into not knowing power structure of the country. Quite unfortunately, these people would be in for a rude awakening if Trump were to ever tragically become President were it not for his ability to re-direct genuine problems onto popular scapegoats, which has been his one genuine accomplishment in his farce of an election campaign.

CSM - you are correct that Bernie has done more than raise awareness about college debt.  I should be ashamed to say I didn't know much about him until he started to campaign and he reminded me of an old hippie who went to law school and was in higher office.  He was involved in a profound way in civil rights back-in-the-day.  I would consider that part of his formation But building an organization to be on the ground is enormous and he has done that.  Hillary wants his campaigners.  I bet Trump does as well.  He gained momentum and a great number of the popular vote in a short amount of time. 

These students are desperate and are as you say, enslaved by debt.  Some as high as a quarter of a million dollars if they went to a private Ivy or some similar school.  And if there is no path to a job right out of school that pays well enough to pay down the debt, there is big trouble down the line trying to buy a home, and why so many have returned home to live with parents because they cannot pay rent and the college loans simultaneously.   

Even if you think they are different or have different philosophies, or firearm usage types, with the 2nd amendment, neither wants it abolished. Trump is against outsourcing of industry and jobs and I can agree with that. 

This has been an interesting discussion. Thanks.       

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Even if you think they are different or have different philosophies, or firearm usage types, with the 2nd amendment, neither wants it abolished. Trump is against outsourcing of industry and jobs and I can agree with that.  

This has been an interesting discussion. Thanks.      

I may continue the discussion for a moment, if that's okay. If you are not interested, maybe someone else can pick up the thread.

I'm not sure I can think of any major candidate in contemporary times who has been in favour of abolishing the 2nd amendment.

As far as Trump being "against outsourcing of industry and jobs," we have discussed before that he was not against it with his own businesses only a few years so I would be surprised if he was genuinely against it now. Just as I pointed out above with the Ali quote, his comments seem to be made far more out of shameless opportunism than conviction. Furthermore, being against outsourcing of industry and jobs would be a good thing if the alternative wasn't to make it easier for big businesses to stop outsourcing by making people more exploitable at home. And given that Trump has come out in favour of eliminating regulations of businesses, that appears to be exactly his position.

In other words, he's saying, you don't have to get cheap labour elsewhere anymore because I am going to remove the rules that have prevented businesses from exploiting labour here so that they moved outside the country. And from a person who has had no major qualms about exploiting labour, it doesn't take a genius to conclude that this would be the outcome. The idea of eliminating outsourced labour sounds good, but when you look into why Trump in particular is pledging this, one should realize immediately the extremely grim consequences.

Again, he's an extraordinarily serious threat to the well-being of just about everyone on the planet and if he is able to push forward even a small fraction of what he has in mind, it will be utterly devastating.

[filledeplage]

Even if you think they are different or have different philosophies, or firearm usage types, with the 2nd amendment, neither wants it abolished. Trump is against outsourcing of industry and jobs and I can agree with that.  

This has been an interesting discussion. Thanks.      

I may continue the discussion for a moment, if that's okay. If you are not interested, maybe someone else can pick up the thread.

I'm not sure I can think of any major candidate in contemporary times who has been in favour of abolishing the 2nd amendment.

As far as Trump being "against outsourcing of industry and jobs," we have discussed before that he was not against it with his own businesses only a few years so I would be surprised if he was genuinely against it now. Just as I pointed out above with the Ali quote, his comments seem to be made far more out of shameless opportunism than conviction. Furthermore, being against outsourcing of industry and jobs would be a good thing if the alternative wasn't to make it easier for big businesses to stop outsourcing by making people more exploitable at home. And given that Trump has come out in favour of eliminating regulations of businesses, that appears to be exactly his position.

In other words, he's saying, you don't have to get cheap labour elsewhere anymore because I am going to remove the rules that have prevented businesses from exploiting labour here so that they moved outside the country. And from a person who has had no major qualms about exploiting labour, it doesn't take a genius to conclude that this would be the outcome. The idea of eliminating outsourced labour sounds good, but when you look into why Trump in particular is pledging this, one should realize immediately the extremely grim consequences.

Again, he's an extraordinarily serious threat to the well-being of just about everyone on the planet and if he is able to push forward even a small fraction of what he has in mind, it will be utterly devastating.

CSM - I think Clinton wants the 2nd gone.  I wish I knew more about import-export and the duties/tariffs/taxes involved, but I don't.  There are a couple in contention now.  One is Nabisco - who makes cookies and crackers, etc., and the other is Carrier who make air conditioners.  They are closing and moving and those jobs are gone so it is in the news.

He will have to come up to speed on policies, if he is elected.  What is on everyone's minds is terrorism, and from what has happened in the last 15 year or so, things have gotten worse, so that might decide the outcome.  We will see what happens.   

[Chocolate Shake Man]

CSM - I think Clinton wants the 2nd gone.  I wish I knew more about import-export and the duties/tariffs/taxes involved, but I don't.  There are a couple in contention now.  One is Nabisco - who makes cookies and crackers, etc., and the other is Carrier who make air conditioners.  They are closing and moving and those jobs are gone so it is in the news.

He will have to come up to speed on policies, if he is elected.  What is on everyone's minds is terrorism, and from what has happened in the last 15 year or so, things have gotten worse, so that might decide the outcome.  We will see what happens.  

Clinton does not want the 2nd Amendment gone, no.

He appears to be "up to speed on policies" - he says very little of them to the public because it would probably lose him the election if he spoke about the issues in any concrete way. But he's outright said that he will eliminate many of the regulations on business.

What little Trump has said about terrorism should make anybody genuinely worried about terrorism run for the hills. Mostly his position on terrorism seems to be that he is in favour of it.

[Emily]

Hello.
I would pick up the thread, but I agree completely with your last post, so there isn't really anywhere to go from there. well  the thread wasn't dropped.

I will say that I don't think Sanders was more likely to beat Trump than Clinton is. Sanders' negatives have never been run and he's got some whoppers, as they would play in Peoria. And once Clinton opened against Trump it seemed pretty effective.
I think that Trump may just dig his own grave, in any case. (fingers crossed).

I really wish Sanders would turn his focus away from the presidential campaign and toward the hundreds of other seats available. I'm feeling this has become about his ego rather than his ideals. You want real change? Do what Ralph Reed did and work from the bottom up - get your actual supporters, which Sanders can gather from his campaign, to run for city councils, then in a few years, they can get backing to run for state legislatures, then in a few more years, governorships and congress. Where do you think the Tea Party came from? All the Michelle Bachmanns? All the state legislatures overthrowing sanity and spitting out congressional candidates? Trace them back. They all were started out on school boards and town councils by Ralph Reed.

Sanders knows this. He could've withdrawn, with the supporters he's gotten, and taken his money and put it where it matters a month or two ago. Come November, he could've had people on city council ballots and state legislature ballots. Some of his change, which I support as far as it goes, will actually have started to happen.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Hello.
I would pick up the thread, but I agree completely with your last post, so there isn't really anywhere to go from there. well  the thread wasn't dropped.

I will say that I don't think Sanders was more likely to beat Trump than Clinton is. Sanders' negatives have never been run and he's got some whoppers, as they would play in Peoria. And once Clinton opened against Trump it seemed pretty effective.
I think that Trump may just dig his own grave, in any case. (fingers crossed).

I really wish Sanders would turn his focus away from the presidential campaign and toward the hundreds of other seats available. I'm feeling this has become about his ego rather than his ideals. You want real change? Do what Ralph Reed did and work from the bottom up - get your actual supporters, which Sanders can gather from his campaign, to run for city councils, then in a few years, they can get backing to run for state legislatures, then in a few more years, governorships and congress. Where do you think the Tea Party came from? All the Michelle Bachmanns? All the state legislatures overthrowing sanity and spitting out congressional candidates? Trace them back. They all were started out on school boards and town councils by Ralph Reed.

Sanders knows this. He could've withdrawn, with the supporters he's gotten, and taken his money and put it where it matters a month or two ago. Come November, he could've had people on city council ballots and state legislature ballots. Some of his change, which I support as far as it goes, will actually have started to happen.

Well, here is where we seem to have our one major political disagreement. Okay, maybe it's minor, because I do believe that Sanders' greatest accomplishment has already occurred. At any rate, I don't necessarily think that Sanders is staying in it because of his ego. I think he is staying in it because he genuinely believes himself to be the better candidate and that the country would be better off with him in power, which it would be, in my view.

[Emily]

Hello.
I would pick up the thread, but I agree completely with your last post, so there isn't really anywhere to go from there. well  the thread wasn't dropped.

I will say that I don't think Sanders was more likely to beat Trump than Clinton is. Sanders' negatives have never been run and he's got some whoppers, as they would play in Peoria. And once Clinton opened against Trump it seemed pretty effective.
I think that Trump may just dig his own grave, in any case. (fingers crossed).

I really wish Sanders would turn his focus away from the presidential campaign and toward the hundreds of other seats available. I'm feeling this has become about his ego rather than his ideals. You want real change? Do what Ralph Reed did and work from the bottom up - get your actual supporters, which Sanders can gather from his campaign, to run for city councils, then in a few years, they can get backing to run for state legislatures, then in a few more years, governorships and congress. Where do you think the Tea Party came from? All the Michelle Bachmanns? All the state legislatures overthrowing sanity and spitting out congressional candidates? Trace them back. They all were started out on school boards and town councils by Ralph Reed.

Sanders knows this. He could've withdrawn, with the supporters he's gotten, and taken his money and put it where it matters a month or two ago. Come November, he could've had people on city council ballots and state legislature ballots. Some of his change, which I support as far as it goes, will actually have started to happen.

To add to this - actually, the Tea Party and Trump are pretty strong evidence that the parties are not corrupted. And Hillary Clinton is no evidence that they are. I know it's hard to believe to Clinton haters that she legitimately won, but she actually did.
the Tea Party and Trump have shown that people that the Republican "establishment" want to win don't, if their voters don't agree.

The problem is, as TRBB said above, the voters. They are affected heavily by where the money goes, in propaganda, in education, and in the fact that corporations will openly threaten to lay people off if, say, the minimum wage is raised. But a theocratic minority managed to take over the Republican Party with patient long-term planning and lots of leg-work. Their movement in the end isn't succeeding on the national level because some of what they want is unconstitutional and most of it is abhorrent to more than half of the country. But in the states where it's not abhorrent to most people, it's been very successful and it has moved the whole conversation to the right.
The left was squashed into silence years ago, but if the left is ready to be heard again, they should follow the same pattern, which if you think about it should be the way to effect change - lay the ground work, get people experience in lower offices, build a broad base, then put people up for higher office. I expect they'd have a similar result at the national level as the Tea Party because those policies are simply not broadly popular (why I'm a separatist.)
The Democratic Party has been playing to the middle - that's not a sign of corruption. If you want the party to change, don't just yell at it, get the voters to change and get new candidates to work their way up. What did happen is that the candidate with the most votes - the one that has been working on her base and resume for a very long time, won. The idea that something sinister has happened if the majority of people didn't change their views within a year to vote for an unknown candidate is illogical. In a tiny country - perhaps. In this country, no.
Sanders' greatest accomplishment could be in the future if he realizes that this shouldn't be about him; it shouldn't be about getting that one guy elected president; it should be about getting hundreds, thousands, of people elected to seats on local, state, and the federal government(s) <-- putting that in brackets caused a strikethrough, of course <<<   over the next 2 decades. Think about it - if he were president now, how much would he be likely to achieve? If someone with his ideals were elected in 8, 12, 16 years with a wave of Sanders congressional candidates, how much would that administration get done? If this isn't transmuted to a local movement focused on other actual candidates, it will have been a flash in the pan. If it is, it can change the world.
And if he turns his attention to that movement now, I'll devote about 20 hrs. a week - full time if it grows enough - to it for the rest of my functioning life. If he doesn't, I'll consider him to have been an ineffective person who couldn't put his ego aside to keep his eye on the ball. Not that he cares what I do, but history will treat him that way as well,

[filledeplage]

Hello.
I would pick up the thread, but I agree completely with your last post, so there isn't really anywhere to go from there. well  the thread wasn't dropped.

I will say that I don't think Sanders was more likely to beat Trump than Clinton is. Sanders' negatives have never been run and he's got some whoppers, as they would play in Peoria. And once Clinton opened against Trump it seemed pretty effective.
I think that Trump may just dig his own grave, in any case. (fingers crossed).

I really wish Sanders would turn his focus away from the presidential campaign and toward the hundreds of other seats available. I'm feeling this has become about his ego rather than his ideals. You want real change? Do what Ralph Reed did and work from the bottom up - get your actual supporters, which Sanders can gather from his campaign, to run for city councils, then in a few years, they can get backing to run for state legislatures, then in a few more years, governorships and congress. Where do you think the Tea Party came from? All the Michelle Bachmanns? All the state legislatures overthrowing sanity and spitting out congressional candidates? Trace them back. They all were started out on school boards and town councils by Ralph Reed.

Sanders knows this. He could've withdrawn, with the supporters he's gotten, and taken his money and put it where it matters a month or two ago. Come November, he could've had people on city council ballots and state legislature ballots. Some of his change, which I support as far as it goes, will actually have started to happen.

Well, here is where we seem to have our one major political disagreement. Okay, maybe it's minor, because I do believe that Sanders' greatest accomplishment has already occurred. At any rate, I don't necessarily think that Sanders is staying in it because of his ego. I think he is staying in it because he genuinely believes himself to be the better candidate and that the country would be better off with him in power, which it would be, in my view.

Emily - Sanders has just let go a bunch of his staff on the campaign.  I don't think he should be compelled to shut down because the media is doing the delegate count.  I do agree that Sanders is not staying in it for his ego.

[Emily]

Hello.
I would pick up the thread, but I agree completely with your last post, so there isn't really anywhere to go from there. well  the thread wasn't dropped.

I will say that I don't think Sanders was more likely to beat Trump than Clinton is. Sanders' negatives have never been run and he's got some whoppers, as they would play in Peoria. And once Clinton opened against Trump it seemed pretty effective.
I think that Trump may just dig his own grave, in any case. (fingers crossed).

I really wish Sanders would turn his focus away from the presidential campaign and toward the hundreds of other seats available. I'm feeling this has become about his ego rather than his ideals. You want real change? Do what Ralph Reed did and work from the bottom up - get your actual supporters, which Sanders can gather from his campaign, to run for city councils, then in a few years, they can get backing to run for state legislatures, then in a few more years, governorships and congress. Where do you think the Tea Party came from? All the Michelle Bachmanns? All the state legislatures overthrowing sanity and spitting out congressional candidates? Trace them back. They all were started out on school boards and town councils by Ralph Reed.

Sanders knows this. He could've withdrawn, with the supporters he's gotten, and taken his money and put it where it matters a month or two ago. Come November, he could've had people on city council ballots and state legislature ballots. Some of his change, which I support as far as it goes, will actually have started to happen.

Well, here is where we seem to have our one major political disagreement. Okay, maybe it's minor, because I do believe that Sanders' greatest accomplishment has already occurred. At any rate, I don't necessarily think that Sanders is staying in it because of his ego. I think he is staying in it because he genuinely believes himself to be the better candidate and that the country would be better off with him in power, which it would be, in my view.

Emily - Sanders has just let go a bunch of his staff on the campaign.  I don't think he should be compelled to shut down because the media is doing the delegate count.  I do agree that Sanders is not staying in it for his ego.

No one is compelling anyone to do anything. He's letting his staff go because his money's running dry, but he could've chosen to redirect that money before he spent it on ads for him for president, which has been unrealistic for a while. That money could've gone to ads for local candidates that are aligned with his movement.
If he wanted to effect change - that's what he would do. If it's not ego, what is it?

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Hello.
I would pick up the thread, but I agree completely with your last post, so there isn't really anywhere to go from there. well  the thread wasn't dropped.

I will say that I don't think Sanders was more likely to beat Trump than Clinton is. Sanders' negatives have never been run and he's got some whoppers, as they would play in Peoria. And once Clinton opened against Trump it seemed pretty effective.
I think that Trump may just dig his own grave, in any case. (fingers crossed).

I really wish Sanders would turn his focus away from the presidential campaign and toward the hundreds of other seats available. I'm feeling this has become about his ego rather than his ideals. You want real change? Do what Ralph Reed did and work from the bottom up - get your actual supporters, which Sanders can gather from his campaign, to run for city councils, then in a few years, they can get backing to run for state legislatures, then in a few more years, governorships and congress. Where do you think the Tea Party came from? All the Michelle Bachmanns? All the state legislatures overthrowing sanity and spitting out congressional candidates? Trace them back. They all were started out on school boards and town councils by Ralph Reed.

Sanders knows this. He could've withdrawn, with the supporters he's gotten, and taken his money and put it where it matters a month or two ago. Come November, he could've had people on city council ballots and state legislature ballots. Some of his change, which I support as far as it goes, will actually have started to happen.

Well, here is where we seem to have our one major political disagreement. Okay, maybe it's minor, because I do believe that Sanders' greatest accomplishment has already occurred. At any rate, I don't necessarily think that Sanders is staying in it because of his ego. I think he is staying in it because he genuinely believes himself to be the better candidate and that the country would be better off with him in power, which it would be, in my view.

Emily - Sanders has just let go a bunch of his staff on the campaign.  I don't think he should be compelled to shut down because the media is doing the delegate count.  I do agree that Sanders is not staying in it for his ego.

No one is compelling anyone to do anything. He's letting his staff go because his money's running dry, but he could've chosen to redirect that money before he spent it on ads for him for president, which has been unrealistic for a while. That money could've gone to ads for local candidates that are aligned with his movement.
If he wanted to effect change - that's what he would do. If it's not ego, what is it?

The genuine belief that he is a better candidate to beat Donald Trump? I'm sure Clinton thinks she is the better candidate to do that, and maybe she is right, but that doesn't mean that she's egotistical for thinking that.

[Emily]

Hello.
I would pick up the thread, but I agree completely with your last post, so there isn't really anywhere to go from there. well  the thread wasn't dropped.

I will say that I don't think Sanders was more likely to beat Trump than Clinton is. Sanders' negatives have never been run and he's got some whoppers, as they would play in Peoria. And once Clinton opened against Trump it seemed pretty effective.
I think that Trump may just dig his own grave, in any case. (fingers crossed).

I really wish Sanders would turn his focus away from the presidential campaign and toward the hundreds of other seats available. I'm feeling this has become about his ego rather than his ideals. You want real change? Do what Ralph Reed did and work from the bottom up - get your actual supporters, which Sanders can gather from his campaign, to run for city councils, then in a few years, they can get backing to run for state legislatures, then in a few more years, governorships and congress. Where do you think the Tea Party came from? All the Michelle Bachmanns? All the state legislatures overthrowing sanity and spitting out congressional candidates? Trace them back. They all were started out on school boards and town councils by Ralph Reed.

Sanders knows this. He could've withdrawn, with the supporters he's gotten, and taken his money and put it where it matters a month or two ago. Come November, he could've had people on city council ballots and state legislature ballots. Some of his change, which I support as far as it goes, will actually have started to happen.

Well, here is where we seem to have our one major political disagreement. Okay, maybe it's minor, because I do believe that Sanders' greatest accomplishment has already occurred. At any rate, I don't necessarily think that Sanders is staying in it because of his ego. I think he is staying in it because he genuinely believes himself to be the better candidate and that the country would be better off with him in power, which it would be, in my view.

Emily - Sanders has just let go a bunch of his staff on the campaign.  I don't think he should be compelled to shut down because the media is doing the delegate count.  I do agree that Sanders is not staying in it for his ego.

No one is compelling anyone to do anything. He's letting his staff go because his money's running dry, but he could've chosen to redirect that money before he spent it on ads for him for president, which has been unrealistic for a while. That money could've gone to ads for local candidates that are aligned with his movement.
If he wanted to effect change - that's what he would do. If it's not ego, what is it?

The genuine belief that he is a better candidate to beat Donald Trump? I'm sure Clinton thinks she is the better candidate to do that, and maybe she is right, but that doesn't mean that she's egotistical for thinking that.

Honestly, I've never seen an analysis of that that takes into account his negatives. Only those that take into account the current situation. If I saw a serious analysis like the former that showed him winning, I'd take it more seriously. But 'he has a very slightly better margin now, when she's had all her negatives on the table and Trump is shooting himself in the face and noone's run Sanders' negatives, so he'd be a stronger candidate' isn't an analysis that I can take seriously.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Honestly, I've never seen an analysis of that that takes into account his negatives. Only those that take into account the current situation. If I saw a serious analysis like the former that showed him winning, I'd take it more seriously. But 'he has a very slightly better margin now, when she's had all her negatives on the table and Trump is shooting himself in the face and noone's run Sanders' negatives, so he'd be a stronger candidate' isn't an analysis that I can take seriously.

Well, to be honest, I'm surprised he's lasted this long so personally I would be surprised if he was the stronger candidate to beat Trump but much less surprised than I would have been a year ago. I'm less worried about his negatives (which Clinton far surpasses, in my view) than I am about the fact that he is not supported by big business in the way that Clinton is. Maybe Sanders and I are both naive in our thinking, but I believe that world may possibly exist somewhere out there where the positions of the candidates are privileged by the voters (and the fact that Sanders has made it this far in this environment demonstrates that there is a modicum of truth to that belief) and in that world Sanders would win the election. Maybe it's that naivety that's keeping him in the election but I don't think it's ego. I just don't see much historically with Sanders that reinforces that.

[Emily]

Honestly, I've never seen an analysis of that that takes into account his negatives. Only those that take into account the current situation. If I saw a serious analysis like the former that showed him winning, I'd take it more seriously. But 'he has a very slightly better margin now, when she's had all her negatives on the table and Trump is shooting himself in the face and noone's run Sanders' negatives, so he'd be a stronger candidate' isn't an analysis that I can take seriously.

Well, to be honest, I'm surprised he's lasted this long so personally I would be surprised if he was the stronger candidate to beat Trump but much less surprised than I would have been a year ago. I'm less worried about his negatives (which Clinton far surpasses, in my view) than I am about the fact that he is not supported by big business in the way that Clinton is. Maybe Sanders and I are both naive in our thinking, but I believe that world may possibly exist somewhere out there where the positions of the candidates are privileged by the voters and in that world Sanders would win the election. Maybe it's that naivety that's keeping him in the election but I don't think it's ego.

To me personally his negatives aren't as bad as Clinton's, but to a lot of Americans I think they'd be worse. I do think Clinton's negatives are worse. But they're already in the calculus. His margin against Trump over hers is very small. And his negatives, which are mild to me, would have an effect on that margin. He's done things that could be easily played as very unpatriotic and flirting with our enemies -Castro's gov't, Sandinistas. My opinion of them is not the same as most Americans, but my opinion on these things is way off-base. And he's got financial stuff in his background that would get a lot of play. The effect that big business being against him would have would be that his negatives would be played with a lot of money and a lot of skill. Big business doesn't have its effect by secret crooked dealings as much as it does by putting enormous funds behind dumb-ass campaigning tactics that win.
If he had a ginormous margin against Trump, I'd think he had more of a chance than he does, but his margin against Trump is slim and I feel like ignoring the effect his negatives would have takes some ego, because he must have professionals pointing this out to him. Clinton's negatives are already in the calculus.
Regarding the policies, I agree/don't agree. If we took the money and media and hysteria out, and people listened and thought and learned, that would be one thing. But given that that's not reality, the majority of voters don't support the majority of Sanders' policies. They've been taught really bad economics and really dumb things about Mexicans and terrorists and lgbt and 'job-creators' and the effects of raising minimum wage and social programs.
To me, the difference is between what should be and what's actual. And moving toward making those the same takes very long-term broad-based groundwork, not running one guy for president. There are serious, deep problems and the one guy isn't going to change them, unless his focus is on building a movement that will support a lot of candidates all over the place.

You don't seem to be responding to the notion that even if he were president, how much change would really have happened and how much could he effect without making deeper, broader changes first?

There is the effect that people like me might be motivated by his campaign to find/be candidates at a local level. But he, as an individual, could help more by focusing on that. I would love if he set up an organization, again like Ralph Reed did, that I or other local people who support Sanders policies could call and get financial and organizational support for a campaign for town council. That would be really effective. But his choice to keep spending his money and time and human resources on an unwinnable fight (unless something radical and historically unprecedented happens in the next month) that in itself helps Trump, instead of spending those resources on building a support network for other candidates seems selfish. And I maintain that if he thinks his quixotic campaign is of more importance than the latter, then I think his ego is involved.

[filledeplage]

Hello.
I would pick up the thread, but I agree completely with your last post, so there isn't really anywhere to go from there. well  the thread wasn't dropped.

I will say that I don't think Sanders was more likely to beat Trump than Clinton is. Sanders' negatives have never been run and he's got some whoppers, as they would play in Peoria. And once Clinton opened against Trump it seemed pretty effective.
I think that Trump may just dig his own grave, in any case. (fingers crossed).

I really wish Sanders would turn his focus away from the presidential campaign and toward the hundreds of other seats available. I'm feeling this has become about his ego rather than his ideals. You want real change? Do what Ralph Reed did and work from the bottom up - get your actual supporters, which Sanders can gather from his campaign, to run for city councils, then in a few years, they can get backing to run for state legislatures, then in a few more years, governorships and congress. Where do you think the Tea Party came from? All the Michelle Bachmanns? All the state legislatures overthrowing sanity and spitting out congressional candidates? Trace them back. They all were started out on school boards and town councils by Ralph Reed.

Sanders knows this. He could've withdrawn, with the supporters he's gotten, and taken his money and put it where it matters a month or two ago. Come November, he could've had people on city council ballots and state legislature ballots. Some of his change, which I support as far as it goes, will actually have started to happen.

Well, here is where we seem to have our one major political disagreement. Okay, maybe it's minor, because I do believe that Sanders' greatest accomplishment has already occurred. At any rate, I don't necessarily think that Sanders is staying in it because of his ego. I think he is staying in it because he genuinely believes himself to be the better candidate and that the country would be better off with him in power, which it would be, in my view.

Emily - Sanders has just let go a bunch of his staff on the campaign.  I don't think he should be compelled to shut down because the media is doing the delegate count.  I do agree that Sanders is not staying in it for his ego.

No one is compelling anyone to do anything. He's letting his staff go because his money's running dry, but he could've chosen to redirect that money before he spent it on ads for him for president, which has been unrealistic for a while. That money could've gone to ads for local candidates that are aligned with his movement.
If he wanted to effect change - that's what he would do. If it's not ego, what is it?

Sanders is being pressured and has been for months to get out. He was not convenient.  Cruz, Kasich and Rubio remained on the ballot and did not step aside.  This election is not about subsidizing local elections for the like minded. People donate to Sanders not his designees.  He needs a few days to rest and regroup.  I am not sure that any TV time would have countered the "delegate" announcement.  That is akin to releasing exit polls in areas where the polls have not closed in some time zones. 

[Emily]

Hello.
I would pick up the thread, but I agree completely with your last post, so there isn't really anywhere to go from there. well  the thread wasn't dropped.

I will say that I don't think Sanders was more likely to beat Trump than Clinton is. Sanders' negatives have never been run and he's got some whoppers, as they would play in Peoria. And once Clinton opened against Trump it seemed pretty effective.
I think that Trump may just dig his own grave, in any case. (fingers crossed).

I really wish Sanders would turn his focus away from the presidential campaign and toward the hundreds of other seats available. I'm feeling this has become about his ego rather than his ideals. You want real change? Do what Ralph Reed did and work from the bottom up - get your actual supporters, which Sanders can gather from his campaign, to run for city councils, then in a few years, they can get backing to run for state legislatures, then in a few more years, governorships and congress. Where do you think the Tea Party came from? All the Michelle Bachmanns? All the state legislatures overthrowing sanity and spitting out congressional candidates? Trace them back. They all were started out on school boards and town councils by Ralph Reed.

Sanders knows this. He could've withdrawn, with the supporters he's gotten, and taken his money and put it where it matters a month or two ago. Come November, he could've had people on city council ballots and state legislature ballots. Some of his change, which I support as far as it goes, will actually have started to happen.

Well, here is where we seem to have our one major political disagreement. Okay, maybe it's minor, because I do believe that Sanders' greatest accomplishment has already occurred. At any rate, I don't necessarily think that Sanders is staying in it because of his ego. I think he is staying in it because he genuinely believes himself to be the better candidate and that the country would be better off with him in power, which it would be, in my view.

Emily - Sanders has just let go a bunch of his staff on the campaign.  I don't think he should be compelled to shut down because the media is doing the delegate count.  I do agree that Sanders is not staying in it for his ego.

No one is compelling anyone to do anything. He's letting his staff go because his money's running dry, but he could've chosen to redirect that money before he spent it on ads for him for president, which has been unrealistic for a while. That money could've gone to ads for local candidates that are aligned with his movement.
If he wanted to effect change - that's what he would do. If it's not ego, what is it?

Sanders is being pressured and has been for months to get out. He was not convenient.  Cruz, Kasich and Rubio remained on the ballot and did not step aside.  This election is not about subsidizing local elections for the like minded. People donate to Sanders not his designees.  He needs a few days to rest and regroup.  I am not sure that any TV time would have countered the "delegate" announcement.  That is akin to releasing exit polls in areas where the polls have not closed in some time zones. 

Of course he's being pressured. The party wants to win the general and they want him to support the selected candidate. That's to be expected.
Clearly it's not about subsidizing local campaigns for the like-minded. I'm saying that if he actually cares about his policies becoming law, he should make it about that. He has a choice and the choice he's making doesn't benefit his policy goals in the long-term.

[filledeplage]

Hello.
I would pick up the thread, but I agree completely with your last post, so there isn't really anywhere to go from there. well  the thread wasn't dropped.

I will say that I don't think Sanders was more likely to beat Trump than Clinton is. Sanders' negatives have never been run and he's got some whoppers, as they would play in Peoria. And once Clinton opened against Trump it seemed pretty effective.
I think that Trump may just dig his own grave, in any case. (fingers crossed).

I really wish Sanders would turn his focus away from the presidential campaign and toward the hundreds of other seats available. I'm feeling this has become about his ego rather than his ideals. You want real change? Do what Ralph Reed did and work from the bottom up - get your actual supporters, which Sanders can gather from his campaign, to run for city councils, then in a few years, they can get backing to run for state legislatures, then in a few more years, governorships and congress. Where do you think the Tea Party came from? All the Michelle Bachmanns? All the state legislatures overthrowing sanity and spitting out congressional candidates? Trace them back. They all were started out on school boards and town councils by Ralph Reed.

Sanders knows this. He could've withdrawn, with the supporters he's gotten, and taken his money and put it where it matters a month or two ago. Come November, he could've had people on city council ballots and state legislature ballots. Some of his change, which I support as far as it goes, will actually have started to happen.

Well, here is where we seem to have our one major political disagreement. Okay, maybe it's minor, because I do believe that Sanders' greatest accomplishment has already occurred. At any rate, I don't necessarily think that Sanders is staying in it because of his ego. I think he is staying in it because he genuinely believes himself to be the better candidate and that the country would be better off with him in power, which it would be, in my view.

Emily - Sanders has just let go a bunch of his staff on the campaign.  I don't think he should be compelled to shut down because the media is doing the delegate count.  I do agree that Sanders is not staying in it for his ego.

No one is compelling anyone to do anything. He's letting his staff go because his money's running dry, but he could've chosen to redirect that money before he spent it on ads for him for president, which has been unrealistic for a while. That money could've gone to ads for local candidates that are aligned with his movement.
If he wanted to effect change - that's what he would do. If it's not ego, what is it?

Sanders is being pressured and has been for months to get out. He was not convenient.  Cruz, Kasich and Rubio remained on the ballot and did not step aside.  This election is not about subsidizing local elections for the like minded. People donate to Sanders not his designees.  He needs a few days to rest and regroup.  I am not sure that any TV time would have countered the "delegate" announcement.  That is akin to releasing exit polls in areas where the polls have not closed in some time zones. 

Of course he's being pressured. The party wants to win the general and they want him to support the selected candidate. That's to be expected.
Clearly it's not about subsidizing local campaigns for the like-minded. I'm saying that if he actually cares about his policies becoming law, he should make it about that. He has a choice and the choice he's making doesn't benefit his policy goals in the long-term.

Sanders has to decide which direction he will take now.  The convention has not happened yet and much can happen between now and then.  Sanders' people won't want him to give up now.  And he has time to figure out what to do with his campaign funds and whether he will have to run deficit fund raisers.

But, he is not indicating, other than letting staff go, that he is ready to withdraw his candidacy.   

[Emily]

Hello.
I would pick up the thread, but I agree completely with your last post, so there isn't really anywhere to go from there. well  the thread wasn't dropped.

I will say that I don't think Sanders was more likely to beat Trump than Clinton is. Sanders' negatives have never been run and he's got some whoppers, as they would play in Peoria. And once Clinton opened against Trump it seemed pretty effective.
I think that Trump may just dig his own grave, in any case. (fingers crossed).

I really wish Sanders would turn his focus away from the presidential campaign and toward the hundreds of other seats available. I'm feeling this has become about his ego rather than his ideals. You want real change? Do what Ralph Reed did and work from the bottom up - get your actual supporters, which Sanders can gather from his campaign, to run for city councils, then in a few years, they can get backing to run for state legislatures, then in a few more years, governorships and congress. Where do you think the Tea Party came from? All the Michelle Bachmanns? All the state legislatures overthrowing sanity and spitting out congressional candidates? Trace them back. They all were started out on school boards and town councils by Ralph Reed.

Sanders knows this. He could've withdrawn, with the supporters he's gotten, and taken his money and put it where it matters a month or two ago. Come November, he could've had people on city council ballots and state legislature ballots. Some of his change, which I support as far as it goes, will actually have started to happen.

Well, here is where we seem to have our one major political disagreement. Okay, maybe it's minor, because I do believe that Sanders' greatest accomplishment has already occurred. At any rate, I don't necessarily think that Sanders is staying in it because of his ego. I think he is staying in it because he genuinely believes himself to be the better candidate and that the country would be better off with him in power, which it would be, in my view.

Emily - Sanders has just let go a bunch of his staff on the campaign.  I don't think he should be compelled to shut down because the media is doing the delegate count.  I do agree that Sanders is not staying in it for his ego.

No one is compelling anyone to do anything. He's letting his staff go because his money's running dry, but he could've chosen to redirect that money before he spent it on ads for him for president, which has been unrealistic for a while. That money could've gone to ads for local candidates that are aligned with his movement.
If he wanted to effect change - that's what he would do. If it's not ego, what is it?

Sanders is being pressured and has been for months to get out. He was not convenient.  Cruz, Kasich and Rubio remained on the ballot and did not step aside.  This election is not about subsidizing local elections for the like minded. People donate to Sanders not his designees.  He needs a few days to rest and regroup.  I am not sure that any TV time would have countered the "delegate" announcement.  That is akin to releasing exit polls in areas where the polls have not closed in some time zones. 

Of course he's being pressured. The party wants to win the general and they want him to support the selected candidate. That's to be expected.
Clearly it's not about subsidizing local campaigns for the like-minded. I'm saying that if he actually cares about his policies becoming law, he should make it about that. He has a choice and the choice he's making doesn't benefit his policy goals in the long-term.

Sanders has to decide which direction he will take now.  The convention has not happened yet and much can happen between now and then.  Sanders' people won't want him to give up now.  And he has time to figure out what to do with his campaign funds and whether he will have to run deficit fund raisers.

But, he is not indicating, other than letting staff go, that he is ready to withdraw his candidacy.   

I wish he would make choices that would support the furtherance of his policies, but you are absolutely correct that those are not the choices he's making.

[filledeplage]

Found this on youtube. Shocking and has been ongoing for some time.  It has been addressed as a potential political/election influence. 

http://youtu.be/PFxFRqNmXKg

Hope it copies. 

[Emily]

I found this shocking video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3axPn65MGM

[filledeplage]

I found this shocking video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3axPn65MGM

Little different from the information that Facebook has been skewing what is "trending."  Media is manipulated. 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/19/donald-trump-facebook-election-manipulate-behavior

http://money.cnn.com/2015/08/20/technology/google-2016-election/index/html

Not just in the US. Especially when elections are close.

https://searchengingewatch.com/2016/02/02/is-google-manipulating-autocomplete-results-for-uk-political-parties/

[Emily]