Bernie Sanders STATEMENT on Primary Elections

[Segami]

PRESS RELEASE


Sanders Statement on Primary Elections



APRIL 26TH, 2016



HUNTINGTON, W. Va. – U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders on Tuesday issued the following statement:

“I congratulate Secretary Clinton on her victories tonight, and I look forward to issue-oriented campaigns in the 14 contests to come.

“I am proud that we were able to win a resounding victory tonight in Rhode Island, the one state with an open primary where independents had a say in the outcome. Democrats should recognize that the ticket with the best chance of winning this November must attract support from independents as well as Democrats. I am proud of my campaign’s record in that regard.

“The people in every state in this country should have the right to determine who they want as president and what the agenda of the Democratic Party should be. That’s why we are in this race until the last vote is cast. That is why this campaign is going to the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia with as many delegates as possible to fight for a progressive party platform that calls for a $15 an hour minimum wage, an end to our disastrous trade policies, a Medicare-for-all health care system, breaking up Wall Street financial institutions, ending fracking in our country, making public colleges and universities tuition free and passing a carbon tax so we can effectively address the planetary crisis of climate change.”




https://berniesanders.com/press-release/sanders-statement-primary-elections/

[Segami]

1. Bernie Sanders IS the people’s REAL champion!

[dinkytron]

10. This is a battle for the soul of America. Can you imagine what it must feel like to be Bernie right

now? I would not be surprised if he does run third party.

A favorite quote:

"It is when men no longer feel that they have adequate choices in their styles of life, when they
conclude that there are no longer possibilities of honorable maneuver and compromise, when they
decide that the time has come for "ultimate" social loyalties and political decisions-- it is then that
ideology begins to flourish."

excerpted from an essay entitled "the thematic paradigm by Robert Bray.

[KPN]

27. Is it time for a real political revolution?

In today's world, that means voting Bernie in the GE. Are we there?

[dinkytron]

31. I don't think its time at this very moment but a lot could happen in a few months to change things.

Bernie is not going to blink and fold like so many are urging him to too. We are definitely in unchartered territory. Bernie would not be so vital right now if Hillary was not such a flawed candidate. In a weird way, the pressure is really off Bernie right now. We are in a weird but exciting place.

[KPN]

41. Agreed 100%.

[Segami]

57. Yes, we are in uncharted waters.....

Both media and the Clinton camp are trying to force Bernie to submit and accept camp Clinton's rush to claim a premature victory but Bernie refuses to play on their terms.


One question every Sanders supporters should ask themselves is ' how can Bernie turn around, after insisting that reforming a corrupt campaign finance system, a major branch of his platform, is no longer a concern and we should surrender our vote to a candidate, who in his words, is being bought & influenced by her billionaire donors, Wall St. banks, Big Oil, Pharma, lobbyists et al?


Buckle up because something completely unexpected could be in the works for the coming convention.

[dinkytron]

61. I agree about the convention. The Stay Puff marshmallow just may show up.

[Rockyj]

85. Excellent point...

Hillary won't try to win us over she basically said @ Town Hall that she didn't need us. I hope he decides to run as a 3rd Party, as the DNC has done nothing to support him.

[Dragonfli]

32. I hope we are there, because if such a peaceful revolution is denied us much longer....

[KPN]

44. Sure seems that way.

What does a revolution mean to you at this point?

To me, it means urging Bernie to run as an Independent or write him in if he's not on the ticket.

[Dragonfli]

49. To me it means voting only for the good from now on, no more lesser evil, we stick with the peaceful

Revolution!. There is yet to be decided the tactic of voting good over evil in great numbers and to it's greatest effect, writing in Bernie will not even be recorded in most states, so some are giving thought to a third party to place our energy in.

Let me leave you with this, it is part of a longer post but includes the essentials..


I didn't quit the party, the party quite literally fired me and kicked me out against my will [font size="1"](unauthorized affiliate change from a 37 yr Democrat to unaffiliated.)[/font] So they maybe should have thought twice before doing that because had I had my say in my primary choice, I likely would have voted lesser of two evils as usual. Until I was cast out, I was caught in a seemingly recursive time-loop of voting evil (how ever minor the lesser demon may have been).

They kicked me out of the party, but they also freed me from this delusion of lesser evilism that has led to voting after so many times , each with a further rightward shift, that now it appears doing so has become voting for Republican policies cloaked in Democratic wording by Republicans cloaked as Democrats.

It was a slow boil these past 37 years, but Hillary is far to the right of the first Republican I voted against so many years ago.

They only need their money and endless wars and in their hubris believe they only need the wealthy and a few brainwashed personality worshipers to win the GE and the presidency.

You are right Yui, She really doesn't need us at all....
So it is time to vote for the good rather than the evil, no matter how "lesser" they claim that evil to be, it still reeks of sulfer.

To those very few she does think she needs , that she counts on to win because she is somehow less evil, a 'minor' demon rather than one with more sulfur burning at it's alter -- a warning:


[center][font size="2"; color =" 8B0000"]One can vote lesser evil, be warned vote the lesser of two evils you might as well vote Cthulhu 2016[/font][/center]
Evil cannot be extinguished by evil, only consumed eventually by the greater evil and since Hillary is the lesser evil, she will be consumed and make even greater the great evil that is the immortal Deity!



[font size="4"; color="red"][center]Cthulhu 2016 [/center][/font]

because no matter which lesser evil you choose (if you choose evil at all) the greater evil will only consume it and run things anyway! Lets cut out the ceremonial middle-man (or woman) and get on with the inevitable destruction and mayhem!

Vote Cthulhu which is the greatest evil if you like evil at all, why not, he will only consume all lesser evils and run things regardless.

[font size="1"]They say that voting the lesser of two evils stops a greater evil and if one doesn't do so one is voting for the greater evil by allowing it to win.
I say the two are essentially the same as any evil however less, evil only enables the greater evil in the end.

So one might want to try voting for the good instead.[/font]
The post in full and in context of the OP

[nolawarlock]

69. Um ...

So what is this implying?

[Dragonfli]

70. There was no implication whatsoever, just the simple truth of an ever repeating history

When the aristocracy starves the population sufficiently, one of two things happens - a peaceful change that relieves the general population of misery, starvation and lack of mobility upwards from such a fate (the option I prefer before it is no longer an option).

Or the inevitable revolution that involves blood and uncertain outcomes, ofttimes replacing one very small gilded elect group shitting on golden toilet seats while the masses starve with a different set of gilded elites sitting on golden toilets, it is the unpredictability and the bloodshed I hope we have time to avoid and shall work towards.

No secret codes in my words or those of Jack Kennedy's, no "implied meanings" simply facts stated plainly from a plain spoken man.

[nolawarlock]

71. I wish the world were as black and white as some folks here make it ...

... but alas it is not.

There are so many issues at stake and they don't all necessarily bleed into one another.

And more than that, I don't most of the entitled people I meet today would survive that kind of revolution. They don't truly understand that level of struggle.

[Dragonfli]

73. You are not a a reader of history I take it, it hs nothing to do with black or white, just another

cycle that appears to repeat endlessly.

Hillary, is helping to move that cycle to a less favorable end than I would hope for, her winning, a great boon for income inequality, is actually a loss of a win wins, an even greater loss, as is more likely once her support limited to mostly one third of the general electorate will usher in an even more flammable accelerant to increase the rapidity of this unfortunately repeating cycle.

[nolawarlock]

75. Not only a reader of history ...

... but I was a politics major. I think Hillary has a better chance of winning some of Bernie's positions than Bernie does. I think Obama would have an even better chance but we can't keep him. And mind you, I was for Hillary in '08. Obama really surprised me because he never seemed to have a real issues-based message. Bernie's got a lot of substance to his message but there are some things I cannot support without some adjustment.s

[Dragonfli]

76. Hilary is not what you think she is for, she will push more war and favor banks, political rhetoric

is not to be trusted from one that changes views so often and easily. I live in the fastest growing demographic in america, the poor, I have seen this same movie play out for thousands of years as have you.

My advice, visit the ever increasing poverty and the ever increasing areas where such exists.

[nolawarlock]

78. Interesting you should say that.

I grew up in poverty. Certainly not the most extreme poverty, but poverty nonetheless. I've lived in welfare motels. I've scraped to eat. I've visited food banks. Poverty is not an arena I haven't done battle in. Moreover, I live in a city and in a neighborhood where poverty is rampant. It's why my husband go out every year to buy toys for the neighborhood kids. It's why we support the park next door and all its events that cater mostly to the poorer members of the neighborhood. There is a culture that came from that poverty here and it gave us many great things.

That being said, I don't think Hillary is the person people are making her out to be. The people in our neighborhood, the oldest black neighborhood in America mind you, have spoken of her husband's presidency as a time of prosperity. Heck, that was a time when I worked in what I call "the muggle world," and it was the most prosperous time of my life in that arena as well. Then Bush came in and everything went to hell and I was literally living in my aunt's basement. Though I will say I owe Bush in the sense that all his failures forced me to change my life and find a new avenue for my career. And, as Obama came in, my success grew greater than ever. So, I know poor and I know success, and I think that if Hillary can stand in the shoes of either Bill or Barack, there will be more opportunity for people. It certainly cannot be easy for Obama with the congress he has and I don't think Bernie will have it much better.

[Dragonfli]

81. "have spoken of her husband's presidency as a time of prosperity." true due to a tech bubble,

put the poor lost most of the safety net because he wished it so, it hurt my poor neighborhood especially minorities like myself, the hardest once the combination of the artificial bubble burst, and our jobs vanished with NAFTA leaving us poorer than before Clinton.

The poor grew poorer as a result of his policies and hers are even worse. You know better than to pretend the economy was not temporarily propped up by a bubble and policies like NAFTA and bank deregulation have a delayed effect, if I didn't know better I wold think you were feigning such to annoy me, or insult my intelligence.

You are also ignoring that poverty is growing under Clinton style neo-liberal policies while the obscenely wealthy become even more so, fitting my historical perspective perfectly.

Take a day or two, so that you may discuss more clearly and less condescendingly rude regarding my intelligence, before engaging me further.

If you please.

[nolawarlock]

83. I don't think I'm being rude or condescending by disagreeing with you.

In fact, I thought what I said was quite polite. But I guess there's no talking to you so I just won't talk to you at all. I actually complemented you on not calling me a paid troll so clearly I thought you were smarter than the baseline here but whatever. I'm done. I just don't care. My preferred candidate won. I'm going to go enjoy that.

[Carolina]

74. K&R, Dragonfli

[JimDandy]

43. Only 40 states allow write-in candidates, and, although all of the Dem states

are in that category, it would be extremely difficult to pull off on a nationwide scale. I also doubt Sanders would seriously entertain running that kind of campaign. Looking at this campaign objectively, it is clear that had he run as an independent from the start, he probably would have won in the GE, but that is Monday night quarterbacking...

[KPN]

48. Bernie would not have gotten the exposure had he run as an I.

He would not have been included in any primary debates, town halls, caucuses or elections. The media would have given him no more attention than they give Jill Stein.

He had no option but run as a Democrat if he wanted to have a real impact. He did that and he has. It's not about winning ad a write in, it's about laying groundwork for the future.

[JimDandy]

55. Very aware of that, but didn't want to get into the weeds of spelling out what would have had to

have happened to level the playing field for an independent candidacy. It is crystal clear that we have a very unjust, immoral and unfair election system that blocks highly viable independents from even minimally, let alone fully, participating in it.

[ContinentalOp]

80. You've got to be kidding.

If he had run as an independent we could very well be looking at President Trump. If he can't even win the democratic nomination against Clinton there's no way he would have won as an independent.

[JimDandy]

84. I disagree.

[mythology]

90. Based on what?

Sanders wins the youth vote which is small compared to other age groups and liberals. And he's significantly far behind in the Democratic primary which skews younger and more liberal than the the electorate as a whole.

There is no reason to think Sanders could win as an independent in the general.

[Baobab]

63. Nothing worthwhile is ever easy.

nt

[akbacchus_BC]

66. Mr. Sanders would not run third party as he knows a lot is at stake.

Am just shocked that Americans have no idea who is rooting for them. If you all get Hilary Clinton, it will be the same old shit!

[akbacchus_BC]

65. I know, he gave Americans hope but sadly he did not make the cut!

Americans are going to regret not voting for Mr. Sanders. Not sure if they are not tired of the same old bull shit time and again! What a sad day in history for working class Americans!

[madokie]

82. Yes he is

I'll stick with him as long as he is there.

[bkkyosemite]

2. "“The people in every state in this country should have the right to determine who they want

as President" IT"S NOT OVER >......Til the lil Birdie sings....

[onenote]

5. The people in every state do have the right to determine who they want as president

its called the General Election.

The primary process is not intended to pick the president. Its intended for a political party to pick its nominee.

[onenote]

22. well, that's one way to look at it

Of course if what you are saying is that those people who don't get the nominee they want drop out of the party, then the party will never win, no matter who its nominee is.

The reality is that political parties pick their nominees. If someone wants to participate in the process of a particular party picking its nominee, they should join that party. Otherwise, the logic of your position is that everyone should get to vote multiple times -- once to pick the Democratic nominee, once to pick the repub nominee.

[KPN]

28. And if the process is short circuited at the primary, a person still has the right

to vote for who she or he deems worthy. Parties are I irrelevant in that regard.

[Loudestlib]

30. In a two party system this simply is not true. n/t

[onenote]

33. Of course its true

And if folks don't want a two party system, they should start additional parties. But why should someone who doesn't commit to and identify as a member of a particular party get to participate in that party's nominating process. Why shouldn't that person get to vote in every primary?

[Loudestlib]

37. Of course it not true. n/t

[KPN]

46. Duh? Why aren't there more than two parties

is a better question.

[LuvLoogie]

56. There ARE more than two parties. I will name a few of the others...

Libertarian Party
Communist Party
Green Party
Constitution Party
American Freedom Party
Freedom socialist Party

...

And all are free to forward a candidate for any office as long as they follow the rules of their state's Board of Elections.

[KPN]

59. Lol!!!!

You left out a few.

[bkkyosemite]

53. The process should be that the people pick who they want for President. This tactic is to keep the

establishment in control and manipulate the people.

[pat_k]

3. "as many delegates as possible to fight for a progressive party platform"

Damn right!

[Schema Thing]

4. good.

[RadiationTherapy]

6. Thank you bernie. This nation and the world need to hear your voice on as large a platform

as possible for as long as possible. It must be exhausting for you, but you are inspiring millions of people to reassess the status quo and their own role in change. You are an inspiration and a moral personality worth looking up to. You are leaving a remarkable and historic legacy.

[DLnyc]

7. Wow, classy, clear and substantive!

I guess this is what has the party insiders so scared -- actual coherent logic!

[Bleacher Creature]

8. Translation: He's conceding the nomination.

But staying in the race to keep pushing his issues. Fine with me.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

15. He didn't say that

[KPN]

35. You are right. He didn't concede anything of the sort.

To the contrary, he staked out ground and made claim to it on the basis of popular support. Bernie has 40% of votes in primary States thus far (keep in mind that, what, 9 of them did not even vote ... they held caucuses ... and he dominated most of those). He carries a very big club that Hillary and the DNC would be wise to respect.

Absent that, perhaps this is the year for revolution. What would that look like? Two options come to mind: Bernie could either run as an Independent, or Berners could write him in. Either way, the outcome might be best for the nation.

[Maru Kitteh]

18. Agreed.

[Jester Messiah]

52. Perhaps not.

I sense an appeal to the SD's in there. A forlorn hope probably, but if they want to actually win in November...

[hollysmom]

9. I have not voted yet, next month for me

[JimDandy]

47. Hang in there! Bernie and all of us who support him are going to give you that opportunity.

For me it felt GREAT to vote for someone without reservation or nose holding, or any invoking of "the lesser of two evils" thought.

Enjoy the day when it comes!!!

[CorporatistNation]

12. Contrary To Some "Distortions" Of This Statement elsewhere on DU... I Do NOT See Where Bernie...

states that he in any way is giving up on eventually making his very STRONG CASE AGAINST THE ESTABLISHMENT FIX THAT HAS BEEN THIS PRIMARY CAMPAIGN NEARLY THROUGHOUT... AND POSSIBLY WINNING THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION.

No give up here!


Funny... Anderson Cooper tonight referred to Bernie as "The INDEPENDENT Senator..." Just a slipppp...? NOT!

These klowns think that we are all morons!

Bernie was a track guy... and guys or gals who run track understand that you do not quit in the middle of a race... Because ya never know... the "runner" in front of you might just... FALL DOWN!!!!! Think FBI Investigation... never hear a peep about that now do we....

[George II]

16. Here is the way Sanders himself registered with the FEC for his 2018 re-election campaign:

S4VT00033 SANDERS, BERNARD 2016 BURLINGTON VT INDEPENDENT S - SENATE

http://www.fec.gov/finance/disclosure/candcmte_info.shtml

Anderson Cooper agreed with Sanders.

[Loudestlib]

36. Psssss

You know senators are elected for 6 years right? That was filed on August 20, 2013. If you're going to try and smear someone you should at least know the basic facts about what you are trying to smear them with.......

[dchill]

50. Be fair, now. Without smears, what do they do?

Think?

[George II]

13. "I am proud that we were able to win a resounding victory tonight in Rhode Island"!!!

How about those RESOUNDING losses in Delaware, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Connecticut?

He won Rhode Island (smallest state in the union) by 12%, but lost Delaware by 21%, Pennsylvania by 12%, Maryland by 30%, and Connecticut by 4%.

Senator Sanders,

[KPN]

39. So do you want any Berners to support Hillary in the GE (assuming she is the nominee)

or are you just trying to be an a......?

[mvd]

14. Classy as always

To the non gloaty and non "it's over" Hillary supporters, I congratulate you. I never will understand why you did not support Bernie, especially considering how the Party has gone right, but they had a very good if expected night.

[passiveporcupine]

17. This shows just how wrong a closed primary is. The best man can't win

because we have a system set up to exclude over 1/3 of our voters, because they don't fall into our accepted two party system, which really really sucks. Why do there votes not count?

[mythology]

20. Why do the votes of people who can't spend 3 hours at a caucus not count?

It's hard to make the argument that it's too hard for people to update their voter registration if you aren't going to call out caucuses which get far lower turnout than primaries do.

[mvd]

21. I saw an independent voter at my polling place turned away

Felt sorry for him. I agree with you. It makes independents' voices count less.

[JaneyVee]

25. Because its a PARTY NOMINATION.

You think we want Republicans choosing our candidate? No thanks.

[mvd]

29. It could go the other way also

There are only two main parties, so it's fine with me.

[Joe the Revelator]

42. But you need independents to win the next round....

its like you guys forgot that there is a 2nd part of this 'game'.

You get indies fired up early, then you have them through the GE. You shit on them, and present them with a polarizing candidate that the didn't want, you can't be shocked when they don't turn out in November.

[LuvLoogie]

58. Independents are free to register as Democrats according to the rules

of their state board of elections. There are no Political Thought Police.

[Qutzupalotl]

99. Provided independent New Yorkers had decided on Bernie in October.

People who took their time to decide were SOL.

[LuvLoogie]

101. If you are a hedge and can't make up your mind whether you're

a Democrat or a Republican during election season, then yeah, you are SOL.

NO DAY TRADERS! Pick a team.

[Qutzupalotl]

103. Six months in advance of the election is ridiculous.

Especially since we need to win over those independents in November. Listening to them beforehand would have helped us avoid disaster.

[LuvLoogie]

104. I'd put it at 3 months prior for primary party switches...

Same day registration for the general only

[snowy owl]

77. You're right. The parties are exclusive clubs. How does that help democracy?

[onenote]

24. the system doesn't exclude anyone. Voters exclude themselves by not joining a party

The general election is where people who don't want to identify with a particular party (or a major party) get to have their say. But there is no more logical reason for someone who is not a member of a party to have a role in choosing that party's nominee than there is for allowing everyone to vote in more than one primary.

[LiberalFighter]

26. Like that response.

[Rebkeh]

45. Voters exclude themselves by not conforming?

Is that what you're saying?

Please tell me I misunderstand you. I cannot think of anything more unamerican than that.

I understand why parties formed, and even when unintended, the form themselves. But what you just described sounds more like an exclusive club where members fall in line and follow orders. Or like a sporting team, football or something. That's not even close to representative nor is it what democracy is supposed to be.

These words are becoming more and more meaningless. Why did the founding fathers leave Europe, again?

[LuvLoogie]

62. Bernie chose to be affiliated with the Democrats. The Democrats are a Team.

If you don't want to join the Team, you don't get to choose our Quarterback. Slate your own unaffiliated primary if you want to remain unaffiliated.

[Rebkeh]

64. You both missed my point, and illustrated it beautifully

Parties are not supposed to be teams in the first place. That's the problem. Well, one of them.

Parties are supposed to represent the people, the other way around - members are to be the boss, not the followers. The power roles are reversed when they function as teams. With teams, the words "representation" becomes nonsensical. The word "democracy" becomes nonsensical.

[LuvLoogie]

67. No the elected government office holders represent the people. There are party members who never

run for office, yet are integral to the organization. A Party is a free association of individuals with common interests who come to a consensus on advancing certain goals. You can register as a Democrat and be considered a Democrat, that's it.

But more is expected from a candidate for office, e.g. helping down ticket, canvassing, fund raising, vote counting, gaining signatures to get on a ballot, knowing the constituent issues.

Other party members are fund raising specialists, election day GOTV specialists, Precinct captains, etc. The Party is a collective.

Your boss/followers dichotomy doesn't make any sense.

[Rebkeh]

95. "Consensus" with 2/3 of the members

Still illustrating my point there.

The party is supposed to be small d democratic. It isn't.

My dichotomy makes perfect sense.

[onenote]

72. Actually the Constitution contemplates people forming "teams"

Its called the freedom of association.

And you don't feel a party doesn't represent you have two choices: join it and try to get it to change or don't join it. But not joining it and claiming a right to dictate to it and its members isn't democracy, it's the antithesis of democracy.

[Rebkeh]

97. It is either democratic, or it isn't

Using circular logic to make it appear so, does not make it so.

[Live and Learn]

19. K&R nt

[iandhr]

23. The bargaining stage of grief.

[LiberalFighter]

34. His press release might had been worthwhile if he hadn't claimed

that he had a resounding victory in Rhode Island. Winning by 14,227 votes is not resounding.

He is also wrong about stating that "The people in every state in this country should have the right to determine who they want as president and what the agenda of the Democratic Party should be." Yes the people have the right to vote and help determine who will be the nominee. But the agenda is decided by the candidate that wins the nomination. Whether the nominee agrees to including other items on the agenda would depend on how well Sanders sells his ideas.

[felix_numinous]

40. Excellent!

We will be on the right side of history, no matter how it turns out.

Cheers

[Recursion]

51. I only see a statement. Where's this STATEMENT you mentioned? (nt)

[2banon]

54. Right Effin' On, Bernie!

[akbacchus_BC]

60. Bernie is a gentleman and for conceding so gracefully, speaks volumes to

his integrity. A sad day in history for a person who has American values as his campaign. Americans may be sorry for not voting for him in the primaries. Goodluck to all of you who selected Mrs. Clinton, same old like her husband. Hope Black Americans get what they are looking for under another Clinton presidency. Trump cannot win over Mrs. Clinton, we got to be grateful for small mercies under Mrs. Clinton. Better her than Trump!

[Hiraeth]

68. and who better to lead that platform than the guy who has wrote it and lived it.

[hopemountain]

79. class 1V rapids, bernie ~

integrity, truth and grit to the convention and beyond...

[pdsimdars]

86. Here's the quote that is important for the Democratic party to "get"

" Democrats should recognize that the ticket with the best chance of winning this November must attract support from independents as well as Democrats. I am proud of my campaign’s record in that regard. "


This statement cannot be argued with or overemphasized.

[B Calm]

87. Exactly! Seeing how over 50% of registered voters feel their party no longer

represents them and now are registered as independents, it would be foolish for the Democratic party not to go for their vote and grow the Democratic party.

[KoKo]

91. ....!

[Nanjeanne]

88. My candidate. So proud.

[Segami]

92. +10000

[Babel_17]

89. A clear and shining exemplar of a to the point press release

I like it.

[Uncle Joe]

94. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Segami.

[Tarc]

96. That is essentially a concession speech wrapped in a promise to drag it out til the bitter end

Great. I guess...

[Fairgo]

100. insightful

you are right on it. Some seem to misunderstand the primaries. Its about the platform, not the candidate, in the end. Bernie is just the champion of one set of values. He does not need to "win" to be there, but represent the voice of a people. The only way to my vote is if that voice is recognised, honoured, and negotiated into the platform. I am watching carefully. The DNC still has a chance to convince me they are not Vichy dems.

[PufPuf23]

102. I endorse this statement and approach.

I too "look forward to issue-oriented campaigns in the 14 contests to come."