The Billionaires have decreed it?

I thought the GOP would want Sanders in as long as possible, thereby increasing the odds of some kind of nasty Democratic cat fight, embarrassing stuff to use against Clinton, etc. But somebody responded the GOP hopes Sanders would be encouraged to run as an independent if he is kept off the Democratic primary ballot. That would be an enormous long shot, but it does fit the pattern of the Grand Old Party. Grandiose Old Party, maybe.

As far as the media, they need to generate some stories, and it's always good when someone appears as a spoiler. As far as the GOP, they don't know Sanders, but they can hope he develops some sort of ego problem that makes him run as a spoiler. They're probably hoping Clinton tries to force him off the ballot in various primaries, thereby making him angry and rebellious.

Sanders does not and will not accept PAC money. If he did not have donations from Democrats, he'd have to drop out of the race fast.

Nader was hoping to start a third party by getting enough votes to qualify for federal matching funds for a third party. I think he made the hurdle, but it wasn't enough to sustain a third party effort.

We were discussing possible reasons the GOP might want to keep Sanders off the Democratic ballot. One of those possible reasons was because they hope Sanders will stage a third party or "spoiler" candidacy if he can't get on the Democratic primary ballot. Ralph Nader ran a third party effort in 2000. The Republicans may be hoping Sanders will do something similar to what Nader did. You know, we can talk about things other than why my candidate is wonderful, and the other one is a worthless POS. It's called "discussion." Sheesh!

I've said nothing in this thread--or ever--about anyone's candidate being a POS. I know what a polite discussion is and I had been attempting one with you.

Finally, I did not understand the meaning of your Nader reference because I had already responded to you twice on the possibility that Bernie would run in the general as an Indie: He said he would not and he does not have the money so to do. Republican politicians can figure out the latter quicker than I can.

I thought you were scolding me for going off topic. My mistake.

both of them on economic fairness issues.

On edit: the suggestions here that they want to force him to run as an independent make sense too.

just as it was eight years ago.

She'll be easier than Bernie to beat -- and if she wins anyway, she'll be easier to control. So it's a win-win for them.


rocktivity

ill-informed voters.

A friend of mine who calls herself a liberal informed me that she could not vote for Hillary because Hillary and Bill were involved in or associated in so many murders. I could not believe my ears. That story is totally false. There is no evidence for it.

But it is so hard to prove a negative. The calumny thrown at the Clintons means that Hillary has to lift a heavy weight of nonsense in order to win votes from a lot of brainwashed fools.

It's wrong and unfair, but it is reality.

Yet another reason I am for Bernie.

He does not have all that unfair, false baggage.

Presumably!

this Republican who wrote for the NYT flogging this. Of course, the article suggests he is close communication with the New Hampshire Republican in charge of making the decision, who is keeping mum, publicly at least.

And it gets really tiresome.

They keep bringing up the same things over and over over again. And the arguments go on forever, because some particularly annoying/tenacious posters will. Not. Let. It. Rest.