Strange.. less than a month ago (July 30th) he made it quite clear that he wouldn't run independent:

Link?

Link

I'm deeply opposed to bernie's views, but this seems like a terrible reason to hate him. Maybe a few dysfunctional elections need to happen before Americans finally accept that they need to put FPTP voting to rest.

It's a terrific reason to hate him. Running a spoiler campaign that you know will result in the worst guy winning (a la Nader) is a total dick move. Still don't think it happens.


Bernie isn't going to piss on everything he's ever worked for.

Yeah, we lived this in 2000 with Nader handing the election to Bush. If Bernie runs as an independent, he is objectively helping the plutocracy.

http://www.hngn.com/articles/123382/...s-ed-klein.htm

I heard it on radio this morning, and there's several other articles/links on google news if you search "Bernie independent"

He did explicitly say he would not do that last month as it might lead to a Republican winning, but what scares me is that this news come from leaders of his campaign so seems pretty legit threat

Y'know, as I think about it, it's all coming from Ed Klein. And Ed Klein has a long history of using anonymous sources that turn out not to be accurate. 2 minutes of googling will reveal all kinds of crazy Klein stories, all citing anonymous "insiders," that turn out not to be true.

A curated list of Ed Klein's crimes against journalism:
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/05...the-ama/185025

If he does run as an independent it will be the first time a socialist ever did the world some good.

There's zero reason why Bernie would run as an independent anyways. He's on or at least was a committee and generally plays by the Democrat political rules. He'd get yanked by the Democratic leadership if he tried to run as an independent and wreck the Democratic chances

Cornel West endorsed Bernie today

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/t...n-independent/

Bernie running as Democrat

“I made the promise that I would not [run as an independent], and I will keep that promise,” Sanders said in his most widely shared version of the answer. “The reason for that is I do not want to be responsible for electing some right-wing Republican to be president of the United States.”

I'm down with the message but can someone elaborate on what the beef is with Walmart / the Waltons? I get that they have a lot of money, and I've heard a thing or two about some labor disputes, but I'm surprised to see them being called out by name in this particular instance

Bernie Sanders is the Left's Ron Paul. The only difference is that he couldn't last long enough to complete a 20 mile bike ride at noon in the Texas heat vs. a young reporter as Paul challenged one to when asked about his health due to his age.

Both of them have one thing in common: They give voters the illusion that they have freedom of choice. You have no choice. You have owners. They own you. They own all the important land. They've bought & paid for the House & the Senate & they've got all the important judges in their hip pocket.

Congress had what, a 12% approval rating last election? Yet over 90% of the incumbents vying for reelection won another term. How does that happen, over & over & over again?

Question: Can Bernie and Trump both run as independents?

No. Only one independent is allowed per presidential cycle. Haven't you read the 28th amendment?

Because people like their own congressmen, but hate all the other congressmen?

What's the left's equivalent of writing racist newsletters?

Bad 70s haircuts?

Partly, but that's a function of gerrymandering, and having no mechanism for actually reflecting national preferences. Instead, we estimate this by creating a system of preferences in individual districts, which is highly problematic, not to mention the sample size is way too small. The US is abysmal when it comes to an even close to workable citizen-to-legislator ratio.

Had this Amendment been passed along with the Bill of Rights, which is nearly was, we would have about 6,378 members of the House, not a scant 435.

I don't think the number of congressmen is much of a problem.

It totally is, mate. Way harder to buy 6,000 than 435

This, plus it's a matter of access. Congress right now is a game for the super-rich, and in a district that includes hundreds of thousands of people, it's very difficult to make inroads up a party ladder unless you have massive connections. If you were in a pool with only 49,999 other people, there is a considerably better chance you could actually access them in local contexts and create genuine accountability since new people could challenge their seat more easily.