Bernie Sanders Lays Out His Requirements For Endorsing Hillary Clinton
Source: Huffington Post
03/24/2016 07:56 pm ET
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) insisted he’ll stay in the presidential race, but outlined conditions under which he would endorse Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton “if I can’t make it.”
Sanders, who badly trails Clinton in delegates for the Democratic nomination, said Wednesday that his chief priorities include making sure the party embraces his anti-establishment platform and expands its base.
“If I can’t make it — and we’re going to try as hard as we can until the last vote is cast — we want to completely revitalize the Democratic Party and make it a party of the people rather than one of large campaign contributors,” Sanders said in an interview on the progressive Web show “The Young Turks.”
Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-endorsement_us_56f45bf0e4b014d3fe22b4a7
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
LiberalElite
(14,691 posts)So, an endorsement of the Queen will never happen. Thank God.
man of few w
(55 posts)Really? 
Ghost Dog
(16,881 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)And many half-wits said Obama looked like the Messiah. Six of one, half a dozen of the other.
Baobab
(4,667 posts)Look at the bright side, if it weren't for Third Way Democrats, and neoliberals like Tony Blair (who hobnob with torturers) the worst rich people would just find a way kill all the poor people. All around the world.
Seriously.
Behind every cloud there is a bronze lining.
PatrickforO
(15,426 posts)And when we let capitalism control our health care system, our best bet is to not get sick and if we do, die quickly so that our heirs and not the corporate healthcare system gets our estate.
revbones
(3,660 posts)pointing out that we've had 2 dynasties assume the presidency or nearly do so is exactly the same as ridiculous slams against Obama.
Awesome retort there.
hollowdweller
(4,229 posts)I'm sort of sad that the dems are endorsing somebody based on royal family.
I'm not saying she would or would not be a good president. I'll vote for her over the GOP....but I wish we could have come up
with somebody younger and fresher than either she or Sanders.
Cobalt Violet
(9,976 posts)Where have you been?
RATM435
(392 posts)
mac56
(17,821 posts)
Beacool
(30,518 posts)Hillary will be the nominee for the simple reason that more Democrats are voting for her than are voting for Sanders. Therefore, they come up with every excuse, from insisting that there was fraud when he loses to calling her names.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)Bernie will eventually endorse Hillary as I suspect Hillary will endorse him if he gets the nod. Bernie is not looking to burn the party down despite what some of his supporters dream of. I'm just looking forward to this board banning those who continue the primary wars after a winner is declared.
Pat Riots
(76 posts)leftynyc
(26,060 posts)What's wrong? Don't like DU rules?
revbones
(3,660 posts)Is that supposed to hurt their feelings that they haven't wasted as much time on DU in their lives as you?
And I think they were relating the fact that should she become the nominee that you can't wait for the bubble over the Hillary Group preventing reality from sinking in, to expand over all of DU in a world of blissful ignorance about how corrupt Hillary is...
Igel
(37,535 posts)I think he's of the kind who insist on loyalty but can't muster any. The (D) label is a matter of convenience for him to make sure the One True Way is followed, and since he's wrapped up in his goals and beliefs it's not a big deal if he wins in the flesh or in the spirit. As long as the One True Way is followed and accepted.
Been there, done that.
Even the way he expressed it says as much. The implicatures are thick and furious. (Many are those who are thick and furious, one usually trait produces the other.)
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)His name will be mud if he doesn't and his career would be over. Nobody would want to work with him.
Chasstev365
(7,798 posts)
marble falls
(71,926 posts)
pangaia
(24,324 posts)
jwirr
(39,215 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Much as 'Messiah' was in regards to Obama when used by the GOP, 'Inevitable' and 'Queen' are more indicative of the depth of your own objectivity rather than anything else.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)I am glad that I didn't vote for him: I never trusted him
Beacool
(30,518 posts)Just the person who has more pledged delegates and who is also winning the popular vote.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)He is way behind and just recently became a Democrat. Why should we allow him change the party and remake it in his image? Many of us have our own ideas of ways to improve the party. Us democrats who have been party members for years should have more say than a person who only recently joined our organization.
greymouse
(872 posts)would you like any Sanders supporters to vote for your venal, incompetent candidate? Even if Bernie endorses her, and I still think he will get the nomination, she better play nice if she has any hope that a lot of us will not just skip voting for President or write in Bernie.
I've been a Democrat for over sixty years, and today's Democratic party is what the Republican party was in my youth, only less honest. Bernie embodies Democratic principles.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Threats notwithstanding, the loser does not get to decide the direction of the party as a whole.
shawn703
(2,712 posts)Usually involves concessions to a minority to build a working majority.
Hillary and the Democratic Party can either play ball, or you can blame them for four years of Trump come November.
The party usually comes together to defeat the real enemies. Trying to dictate terms as if we just fought a war is not how coalitions are built. The other side is the real enemy. Threatening to allow them to win if things are not to the liking if the losing party is wrong.
And if the Democratic Party wants to defeat the real enemies, they'll play ball. Pretty simple concept, actually.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Acquiescence.
shawn703
(2,712 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)shawn703
(2,712 posts)The establishment will do what it needs to do to win elections.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)More of us voted in the primary that voted clinton. They don't want to lose reliable voters over those who are not secure in their affiliation. And we will not tie our hands by making promises or agreeing to any demands.
shawn703
(2,712 posts)You'll get used to it.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)shawn703
(2,712 posts)48 of 246 Republican seats in the House, and 4 of 54 Republican seats in the Senate. Interesting to see how much power a minority faction can exert over a major political party, isn't it?
bravenak
(34,648 posts)The establishment has the seats. And we won't let that happen to us. Hence the not giving into demands.
Bohunk68
(1,455 posts)include any of the positions of the Progressive part of the party. I see. Fine, see how well it works out for you all when the Progressives don't vote for your candidate. All those new registered voters. Got it. You have gone off the deep end, dear bravenak. You are saying, our way or the highway. Forget that.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Bohunk68
(1,455 posts)I am totally surprised that you do not understand that. I have followed a lot of your posts and read your remarks and have always found them to be thought-provoking and stimulating, even the ones that were, shall we say, controversial? There is always something to learn and assimilate into our thinking. Compromise is what makes politics work and sometimes it leads to strange bedfellows. It's how we build that Big Tent that we call the Democratic Party. We need each other and to exclude is not to build. I look forward to more of your posts and hope that you evolve on this. LUVVVVVVVVVVVVV
bravenak
(34,648 posts)He is demanding not trying to work with the party. That is why I oppose it. We have real enemies on the right to fight. People like me will be hurt worse under republicans. And the making demands things makes me scared because look at the people saying they will not vote and let trump win. Minorities and women will be hurt worse. We do not get to make demands or else. We will be the ones hurt. Seeing people ignore that fact is painful.
Bohunk68
(1,455 posts)I saw what happened in NC and is about to happen in GA and TN and probably IN and KY. And alllllll those Southern states that hates the GLBT community. I am grateful that I live in the North. Bernie is willing to work with the party, just like he has done in times past. It's one of the reasons why he has been Chair of a committee when the dems were in control. If he were not considered a Dem or Dem supporter he would not have been there. It is why he almost always votes with the Dems. It is why the argument that he is not a Dem holds no water. I have been one of those who has also been discriminated against, since the early 60's and while in school and being discharged for being gay and having to pay that price over and over and over again. I understand what happens to wimmin and POC, though not one. I know about discrimination, but not fully as only one in those shoes can know. But, we need to act together and hurling insults is not going to do it. It offends people and drives them away. We need every vote we can get come November, especially on those other offices. The Rethugs were patient over the years and worked to build their power in the states, slowly and surely, while Dems grew complacent and thought to win, we should be more like the Rethugs. As a result, we have lost lots of offices throughout the country. The DLC and the DNC did not help.
TryLogic
(2,291 posts)
sammythecat
(3,597 posts)that's not gonna do this, not gonna do that. You one of this "we"? Are you their spokesperson? Are you one of the decision makers?
What power do you have? As much as any me or any other yakker on this board I suspect, which is none. No power or say at all, other than your single vote.
mac56
(17,821 posts)zalinda
(5,621 posts)When the convention happens the planks are decided. The runner up (never called loser) helps define the platform. The party can get quite raucous over this, hence Chicago in 1968 (?). You have to remember that it is not population that decides elections, even though we wish it were so, it is electoral votes collected. Electoral votes and population size do not equal the same amount of voters represented. So, it is quite possible to win more electoral votes (real electoral votes, not super delegate votes) with less than 50% of the vote.
Z
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Helping shape is one thing, this is something entirely different.
zalinda
(5,621 posts)If you want the candidates voters, then you must make concessions. In the last few elections the candidates have had very close ideologies, it has been a more personality contest. This is why there has been no real movement. You don't owe a candidate your votes, they have to earn them.
Z
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Clinton gave a great speech in favor of obama. That is how it works.
thesquanderer
(13,006 posts)from http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/21/bernie-sanders-learn-jesse-jackson-joy-reid
Four years later, Jackson racked up 13 primary and caucus victories and netted 1,300 delegates. He’d swept the south and also won Vermont, where he was endorsed by then-mayor Sanders, plus a surprise win in Michigan (which Sanders replicated on March 8), which briefly made Jackson the Democratic frontrunner.
...
the proportionality Jackson won had a lasting impact; enabling Obama to become the party’s nominee in 2008 despite losing major states such as California, New York and Pennsylvania
...
“If you clearly don’t have enough delegates to secure the nomination, about the only consequential thing you can focus on is the platform,” said Frank Watkins, Jackson’s longtime chief strategist.
...
platform changes could be within reach; perhaps on a $15-an-hour minimum wage...stricter Wall Street reform, or a fundamental rethinking of free trade. Sanders’ ideas on taxes, healthcare and breaking up the big banks would likely be a tougher sell, but particularly if his campaign ends on a high note, without fatally damaging Clinton’s prospects in November, Sanders will be in a position to see his ideas gain a foothold Philadelphia.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)thesquanderer
(13,006 posts)But he got something. And what he got was pretty significant. Obama would have lost otherwise, based on the info in that excerpt.
Nobody expects the party to accept every single one of Sanders' positions. But you start by asking for everything you want, and you compromise. Despite some posts to the contrary, Sanders has proven to be good at compromise.
homegirl
(1,965 posts)about a "losing party" we are talking about millions of voters. Their interests should be respected and incorporated in the party platform, then acted upon.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)But there are more votes for her so we get more say
homegirl
(1,965 posts)who has not responded to the wishes and needs of millions of Americans runs for reelection-guess what happens? We stay home and we don't write checks and we don't knock on doors or man telephone banks.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)He has not connected with the obama coalition.
hack89
(39,181 posts)or does compromise = give me everything I want or else?
fbc
(1,668 posts)So you are a "reliable voter" in elections that never mean a thing because republicans always win? Oh what ever will the democratic party do if they anger southern democrats?
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Buddyblazon
(3,014 posts)life. Voted for Bill twice. And I keep telling people I'll hold my nose and vote for Hillary. But prevailing dismissive attitudes like yours, bravenak, and many other Hillary supporters makes me realize what you really think of us from the progressive leg of the party....
You truly despise us and I have to tell you...I cannot force myself to vote for someone whose supporters do not like me.
"You're nitwits...now give us your votes, assholes."
It gets harder and harder everyday for me to want to give you people my vote.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Buddyblazon
(3,014 posts)Hillary supporters.
If you guys can't see it and refuse to address it...then we have nothing more to talk about. Besides...I've seen many Hillary supporters on DU the past few weeks that have said they don't need or want our votes.
Funny...I just shredded a letter last night from the DNC asking for my money. People that I've given money to for decades, and now view me as a loon...want my money. That's not happening anymore.
You want to be centrist DINOs forever and dismiss
me and a whole swath of Democrats? Fine. Do it without my support.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)how interesting. I must wonder at the worth of anything this particular swarm has to say? I wonder how much longer they will hang around. I wonder if they will disappear around June/July and re-emerge in about 4 years?
Buddyblazon
(3,014 posts)Check yourself.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)Second, are you the only one responding to Bravenak?
Buddyblazon
(3,014 posts)You've only been here since 2008. Maybe newbies shouldn't be calling out newbies.
frylock
(34,825 posts)Goodness gracious! 
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I honestly have no idea why every comment I make causes such extreme feelings.
rtracey
(2,062 posts)I have to disagree, I am not sure how many times I have seen a Hillary supporter state they would not vote for Bernie, but I have seen WAY too many Bernie supporters, such as yourself state they will write in Bernie or stay home before they vote for Hillary....Just look at the front page of the website.... example....look at the thread about the Bloomberg poll calling 50/50..... the vitriol anger spewing is unbelievable.... you think this is getting a democrat in the white house..... You think the bs trump /cruz fights are idiotic trust me the right wingers are monitoring this site closely.
greymouse
(872 posts)whom would that benefit? Not Hillary. But then again Hillary supporters don't seem to be all that rational, voting for someone who has probably been the worst Secretary of State ever, and financially corrupt.
mcar
(46,058 posts)of the dismissive attitude displayed by some Sanders supporters. We are here fighting for change in much more difficult conditions than are democrats in blue states.
We are all Democrats. Derogating some because of geography is illogical and just plain rude.
fbc
(1,668 posts)Southern democrats have a huge influence on the democratic presidential candidate yet they, at least the ones between Virginia and Florida, contribute absolutely nothing towards getting that candidate elected in a general election.
That's just math. It's not bigotry. I've lived in the south and while I was there I was one of those southern Democrats. If you move to where I live now, you will be one of those Northeastern democrats. That doesn't change the math.
cannabis_flower
(3,932 posts)if you only represent a bare minimum majority. The fact is that if Hillary wins Democrats in majority red states and Bernie wins in majority blue states , she will have a very slim majority of the Democrats. That is not a mandate for Hillary no matter what you think. Unless Hillary's lead is overwhelming (both in delegates and popular vote ), Sanders and his supporters should have right to demand significant consessions. You personally don't represent the Democratic Party any more than Sanders supporters do.
Duval
(4,280 posts)timmymoff
(1,947 posts)with their attitude, lost house and senate, 900 state legislature seats and was it 16 gubernatorial seats. DWS and the third way have done a bang up job. let's reward their failure just as we rewarded Wall St. The corporate wing of the party is a bit slow it seems.
Nacho-_-Bandito
(8 posts)realize that a lot of the people that are voting for Sanders would never have voted for Clinton, regardless. The question you need to be asking yourself is if you want the base of the Democratic Party to shift it's focus away from Third Way corporatism in order to bring in these voters to help reinvigorate and build up the party, or if you want to disenfranchise them further and drive them to voting third party, or writing in Bernie, or just not showing up at all.
You may want to consider the trend in age when looking at the majority of Sanders' voters compared to Clinton's. Her demographic is old and only going to get older. His is the youth vote - the future.
Also, corporate Democrats are as REAL of an enemy as are corporate Republicans. This is no discernible difference in fiscal policy and revolving door political appointments.
okasha
(11,573 posts)--the Democratic base--equate to "Third Way corporatists?"
You msy want to consider the demographic trends in the US. Women already outnumber men, and immigration and birth rate are alresdy turning some states minority/majority. LGBT's remain steady supporters of the Democratic Party for obvious reasons.
Considet, too, that younger voters will get older, and their views will be affected by employmrnt, family responsibilities snd increasing experience.
Wibly
(613 posts)HRC is, to many in America, the side that needs to be combated.
That's what so many HRC supporters do not understand. Their candidate is seen as the big industry bank war machine candidate. I'm not saying she is, only that many many people, a growing number, see her as such. For many, she should be the GOP candidate.
You also need to understand, support for Bernie is not driven by anti Clinton sentiment, but by his policy statements. He's making a lot of sense to a lot of people on all sides of the political spectrum. And the thing that is drawing that support is not something HRC has in her arsenal. Simply put, Clinton does not have what these people want in a President.
In the end, if HRC wins the nomination, she's going to have to find a way to bring that commodity into her arsenal. Short of having either Sanders or Warren as her running mate, I don't see how she can do it. Her record is one of being pro war, pro banks, pro corporate, lightly socially liberal. She is not seen as someone who will make life better for the working class. And the fact the GOP are even less predisposed to helping the working class doesn't help her.
I will suggest to you, unless Clinton wins the nomination based wholly on popular support, and not via super delegates, then she will not become POTUS. I will also suggest to you that those who are supporting Sanders with small donations will also support, even pressure him, to make an independent run.
Most people in the USA do not pledge allegiance to either party. They pledge allegiance to the USA, and when it comes to the USA people, there is wide spread, non partisan and transcendent support for the policies and ideals of the Sanders campaign. Many people see voting for Sanders as doing what is right for all Americans, not just the Democratic Party.
And when it comes down to it, doing what's right for America trumps doing what's right for the Democratic Party.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)
George II
(67,782 posts)are elected in November.
Why are "concessions" now part of Sanders' game plan, when he's been unwilling to make any throughout his entire congressional career?
the loser can dictate his/her terms of endorsement
bravenak
(34,648 posts)It is a free country after all.
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)Laser102
(816 posts)marble falls
(71,926 posts)consensus building is almost a uniquely American value. We will need to vote together to create a Congress that will aid whichever candidate is our choice.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)When has the losing party gotten to decide the direction of the party and so much control over policy and had their demands met?
marble falls
(71,926 posts)LBJ lost and became JFK's VP. GHWB lost and became RR's VP. The losers in primaries become part of the policy team quite often, because Americans are by nature consensus seeking.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)He want to change it completely.
marble falls
(71,926 posts)the team. I feel that Hillary Clinton has modified some important stands and maybe its coincidental or maybe its evolution, but I also think some of the positions that ring with his supporters, started to resonate with Hillary Clinton because they already had been accepted by her supporters.
Whats going on and needs to continue with this primary campaign is the candidate's issues and how they play out to thier supporters are what shapes the platform at the Convention. Hillary Clinton is enough of a political realist to know she needs to listen to everyone as well as does Bernie. She may be (as is Bernie Sanders) the candidate of a factio of the party, but she will be if elected, the President of the nation.
I do not think its too late to bring the nation together - but we need to find common ground in our party first. I know we can.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)It is her way of giving in to some of hus positions. But she is not him and should not be forced to wear his mantle, no matter how many years he has been in government.
marble falls
(71,926 posts)and actively supporting her in the general election or if Bernie drops out. I will support no third party challengers or write ins.
I really do not think anyone except some crack pots think Hillary should wear Bernie's "mantle". They both need to be wearing our mantle.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)marble falls
(71,926 posts)gussmith
(280 posts)And Hillary will change some huge positions again, as it suits her.
TexasMommaWithAHat
(3,212 posts)And the fact that she is "giving" in to some positions which should be Democratic positions is precisely why she's going to have a hard time getting the liberal and progressive wing of the party out to vote in high enough numbers to win.
We realize that Hillary is just Republican Lite, and not at all sincere about helping the working poor and middle classes.
noamnety
(20,234 posts)and I'm curious. Which of his conditions do you think would completely change the democratic party?
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Big ideas but no real solutions to the problems. Just get money out, make it for the people, corporate donors, really, it is words.
noamnety
(20,234 posts)did you have a chance to read it?
bravenak
(34,648 posts)It was a list of demands. No actual ways of doing it that will actually be endorsed my the majority without years of negotiations. Things do not work fast. The patform will be made by the party as a whole, not by his list. That would be very unfair to the rest of us. We like to discuss and decide things together.
noamnety
(20,234 posts)As others have already pointed out, they are conditions for his endorsement, not "demands." I imagine you and I both also have conditions that have to be met before we are willing to endorse a candidate. You must have a list of issues that are requirements or nonstarters for you - things that if they vote for, or against, they'll never earn your vote. Right?
You could probably list your key uncompromisable issues here, and I might even agree with some or all of them. You have some, yes?
JPnoodleman
(454 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)JPnoodleman
(454 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)If they try to shut out an incredibly popular candidate and his message -- it's just not smart. But the Third Way may be dumb enough to circle the wagons. I doubt it will be kumbaya. These are certainly not generous people---they are arrogant and grasping, and will protect their world. That has been demonstrated in countless ways. Sanders supporters can't expect more than crumbs.
This will be interesting to watch. If Sanders doesn't make it they will dump the left wing progressives --as usual. They will feel they have won and winner take all. No need to build coalition. Just shunt us back to the margins--especially since we are growing in numbers. I don't give these people credit for any real wisdom.
GoneOffShore
(18,021 posts)And that worked out well.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)GoneOffShore
(18,021 posts)Bubzer
(4,211 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)Herman4747
(1,825 posts)Bubzer
(4,211 posts)Have a great day! 
MisterFred
(525 posts)I didn't realize you were supporting the Republicans this cycle.
secondwind
(16,903 posts)Darb
(2,807 posts)Damn, what arrogance.
Darb
(2,807 posts)Don't vote smart guy. I don't give a fuck. Bernies like you are why we vote Clinton. Bernie is so much better than his supporters. I have never seen such a chasm between a candidate and his voters. He would be ashamed.
FailureToCommunicate
(14,605 posts)Do you really support Hillary over Bernie because you don't like the attitude of some of his ardent supporters?
Darb
(2,807 posts)By telling them I don't give a fuck. And I don't. Nor do I give a damn what you think.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Darb
(2,807 posts)saying they are not going to vote for Hillary Clinton. They sound like hostage takers. But what I have experienced tells me that the DU is not all that representative of the population at large. Most people will look at the choices and make a decision. Not pout.
I do not care what some poster here says. It doesn't amount to a hill of beans. They should stop saying it, unless of course their intent is to discourage others from voting, which I think is going on, without doubt.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I was like, 'are these ransom notes?' But, whatever. I guess it's just a list of DEMANDS to release the delegates. Which goes back to my same question.
Avalon Sparks
(2,751 posts)Nicely, put.
~Ava~
Ghost Dog
(16,881 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)
cprise
(8,445 posts)The closest political team the US has ever had, according to the Clintons.
Martin Eden
(15,629 posts)If it's into more costly wars that only pour gasoline on the flames of the Middle east, no thank you.
If it's more DLC Third Way Dem party serving the interests of deep pocket campaign contributors, no thanks.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I was a kid for those costly wars, or at least the beginning of this last one, so I have no clue how it is in any way my fault. The DLC is way before my time. That also is not my fault.
Martin Eden
(15,629 posts)Regarding the future:
Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I was under the impression you support Hillary Clinton for president.
She is a DLC/Third Way Democrat, and was for invading Iraq and regime change in Libya. If you help her win the Democratic nomination and she becomes the kind of president many of us who won't support her in the primary think she will be, then the consequences will be partly your fault.
Maybe you believe she'll be different. I hope you're right about that, but I have sincere doubts.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Her past does not determine her future. Being that I come from a bad area and have many people who have committed terrible crimes in my world, I know that a person making mistakes does not mean that they need to be punished for eternity. She wil make better decisions or she will not get a second term. That is how I am handling this.
Not everybody sees the world the way you do. No-one can predict the future.
Martin Eden
(15,629 posts)This is not about the personal political careers of Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton, as far as I'm concerned. It's about where they are likely to lead our country if elected president.
People can change, but I don't base my vote on wishful thinking or the mere rhetoric of politicians. I've been voting in presidential elections since 1976 and my memory goes back to LBJ vs Goldwater 1964. Throughout the decades, I've learned the best way to evaluate a candidate is to examine their actual record, and to judge their rhetoric based on that and whether there are any realistic indications they have truly transformed themselves regarding parts of their record that are unacceptable to me as a voter.
In all sincerity, what I see in Hillary Clinton is the same political bearings on display since she came to national prominence, including her recent tenures as Senator and Secretary of State. Her political rhetoric in this primary battle is, to all indications, born of the necessity to win the primary.
Regarding Bernie Sanders, I have no desire to see him change the course of the consistent record he's established throughout his career in public office and even as a college student when he was getting arrested in the fight against racial segregation. No politician is perfect, but I agree with him more than any other candidate in four decades of voting.
On the Daily show last night, there was a quote that I think holds a great deal of truth:
When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time. - Maya Angelou
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I watched the way he managed his revolution and I believe them. I believe them (many revolutionaries) when they say the South does not count. I believe them when they minimize our importance. I believe them when they say we are (those who said outrageous things like this remain here, unapologetic)ignorant confederates. I believe those who said it believe it.
I watched. And I see. And after the way things went, and the silence from his camp, the statements of his staff, I believe in that silence. I trust it. I trust it to always be there once in office. Arrests and protests notwithstanding(that was great, I thank him), I believe what I see in real time much more that I believe in (the importance of)any stories from the past(over what I see in my lifetime). What you did in the past does not define who you are.
The silence about the Harassment of John Lewis was deafening. As a black person, I gravitate to those who are perceptive enough to see what is going on in their own camp. People are still defending it.
So, it does not matter how many things I agree with him on. The silence is what I believe.
Martin Eden
(15,629 posts)Show me the political candidate who spends their time on the campaign trail scolding their supporters who say and do things that he or she does not. I've never seen it in 40 years, that I can recall.
Have Hillary's supporters worn kid gloves and refrained from anything that could be considered over the top or, dare we say, dishonest?
If you assert that to be the case, then you have been selectively closing your eyes and ears.
If that is not the case, then in all fairness, please show me evidence that Hillary Clinton has spent her valuable time on the campaign trail scolding her own supporters.
My bet is that you can't. I would also bet that neither candidate spends time in DU or other online forums in which people on the internet say all kinds of things.
You are grasping at straws to find reasons to support your chosen candidate over the other one, while not applying the same standards to both.
And, as seems apparent in our exchange today, you are basing your vote on that rather than on their actual records which, in the real world, tell you who they are.
Furthermore, I'm not sure what you mean by "the South doesn't count" in the context of Bernie Sanders. I recall that his campaign pointed out that Hillary has been winning states that almost certainly will be won by the Republican candidate in the general election. That is the truth. Do you think that means that Bernie Sanders doesn't care about people who live in the south, as he does about people throughout the country?
bravenak
(34,648 posts)written about their behavior? Other people not stepping up is not an excuse nor does it solve any of the problems. Rather than ever address the problem, a list of excuses is given. That is not leadership. That is the status quo.
Hillary supporters do not have a series of articles and complaints from civil rights leaders about them, so why is any of this her purview?
Does he stand on his own or is it deflection? He can address it whether she say anything or not.
It does not matter to me if he cares in his heart of hearts. It only matters what he does. His actions would affect me more as president than his feelings.
Akamai
(1,779 posts)Military-Industrial Complex constituencies certainly has shaped the platforms of candidates from the Democratic Party.
I sure would not mind if California, New York or Michigan were among the bellwether states.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)
potone
(1,701 posts)Failing that, it seems to me that there are two other options that would help make the process more truly representative: either have all the primaries/caucuses (although I wish we would drop caucuses, but I think that is an issue decided by the states) held within a two or three week period so that no one area of the country has a disproportionate influence, or have them divided up with some states from each region voting at the same time: say divide up the country by NE, SE, SW, Atlantic states, Midwest, West Coast, for example, and have some states from each of these regions vote on the same day.
Part of the acrimony that has arisen from this primary/caucus schedule is a result of the fact that most of the early primaries/caucuses are held in conservative parts of the country, and this skews the process because of the bandwagon effect. This leads to the kind of reactions that we have seen here, with southern voters feeling disrespected and western voters feeling left out of the process.
There may be other solutions; I am speaking off the top of my head, but this election schedule has created a lot of problems. I hope it changes before the next election cycle.
okasha
(11,573 posts)are MIC constituencies? As well as Third Way corporatists?
Punkingal
(9,522 posts)Why do you have to imply that he is?
bravenak
(34,648 posts)You said it and blamed it on me
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)Hoppy
(3,595 posts)Because the party, as it is now, sucks. H.C.: We need another war.
......................................................D.W.S.: Fuck the rank and file.
........................................................Pelosi: Impeachment is off the table.
......................................................Obama: Impeachment is off the table. We gotta look forward.
and lets not forget T.T.P.
So why should Bernie remake the party? Jill Stein. Just staying home.
And a few dilwads voting for Trump.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)More Democrats voted for Hillary, so we obviously see things differently. That list is no the basis for everyone's vote. Your feelings notwithstanding.
Loudestlib
(980 posts)After this election I expect it to drop even more. Independents make up the largest voting block and it's growing. If you want to bring people back you have to do something.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)if the Party doesn't want a majority well then so be it. If you don't build this coalition, you cannot win. If you want to build a majority, you need more than just the "party faithful," if you are going to succeed. You have to build the party so that more people WANT to be involved. I guess that some folks must WANT to lose.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)mac56
(17,821 posts)"Have they counted Florida yet?" 11/7/2000
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)the Left wing of the party, and independents. It's a recipe to lose, as the Democratic Party has been doing for the past 7 or so years.
mwooldri
(10,818 posts)Sometimes you need to bring in someone from the outside in order to shake things up in an organization that is experiencing difficulties. The Democratic Party has not been doing well in some State and local elections, with us losing governorships and state governments, not to mention that the Republican Party is the largest in Congress despite receiving a smaller share of the vote. "Business as Usual" is not an option in the Democratic Party. Bernie as far as I am concerned is the party's Fresh Eyes.
Good managers also listen to the people who have been showing loyalty to an organization and who have genuine ideas that may be overlooked. Sometimes it does take bringing in someone from the outside and they may well point out "hey, your long-time people have these great ideas and you're ignoring them".
bravenak
(34,648 posts)hellofromreddit
(1,182 posts)Do you want a growing political party, or do you want some kind of exclusive club? Only one wins elections.
As far as I'm concerned, everyone who calls him or herself a democrat gets an equal say. Sanders is currently representing the sentiments of millions of democrats--many of which are brand new ones--and their voices matter.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)And we have been here day in day out. We do not have to go along with his voters wants and his pressure. If you wanna have power in the party, you hafta do work.
Roland99
(53,345 posts)Or do you think DWS is doing a bang-up job or something?
If so, ugh, I have to question your judgment.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)hellofromreddit
(1,182 posts)That thinking is what broke the republican party, and that thinking has reared its head in every fallen nation.
If you see the whole world in terms of "us" and "them", you will always be afraid and angry. Indeed, that has been the tone of your comments around here.
aintitfunny
(1,424 posts)Officially for more than forty-two years. I have always voted - and never voted for anyone but a Democrat whether is was a county, state or federal election.
For those of us who are long-standing, dedicated and active Democrats who know that the party must regain its position as a party of, for and by the people, we recognize that Bernie Sanders wants what we want.
Remember FDR, JFK, RFK, and so many other liberal leaders. Forget the Third Way proponents and the DLC and others who have worked to move our party to the right along with the rest of the body politic. The Clintons were central to the now defunct DLC which seems to have morphed into the Third Way.
The bottom line is whether he has been an official Democrat for five minutes or five decades, Bernie speaks to the progressives of the Democratic Party. I have many hardline Democratic colleagues and friends who support Clinton, but they want to see the change of which Bernie speaks, as well as I do.
I would like to vote for someone for President and not hold my nose. The last time I was able to do that with conviction, joy, and hope was in 2008 for Barack Obama. I supported him, worked for him and voted with less enthusiasm in 2012 when he proved to be significantly less progressive, and way too accommodating to the Republican Party wants and needs during his first term. His recent Supreme Court appointment that will not see the light of day in Congress is an example of his penchant for the center.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Things are better for US now.
Roland99
(53,345 posts)Clinton had the superdelegate lead at this time in 2008. Guess who won the nomination?
And how is it outrageous? Clinton's running only slightly left of her lifelong "Goldwater Girl" stances only because Bernie is forcing her to.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)She actually beat him in the popular vote. He is doing nowhere near as well as either Hillary or Obama last time
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)Roland99
(53,345 posts)speak before Goldman-Sachs at $250k per speech, suck up SuperPAC $$$.
Yeah...those are traits I *love* in liberal ideology!!
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)I mean, that'd be positively... typical... of our primary system. Can't have that! I mean, It's not like hilly was granted SoS in exchange for casting support to Obama after their primary or anything... oh wait... 
Chicago1980
(1,968 posts)I lean Hillary and don't see the issue with this.
How much of it do you actually disagree with?
US democrats have screwed up things plenty and haven't been strong where we should have been.
There's nothing wrong with change.
Calm down and take notice on how thing are.
Gothmog
(179,869 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)Good reason not to make deals. Helping by contributing to policy is one thing, this list is different.
tabasco
(22,974 posts)I handed out bumper stickers for Hubert H. Humphrey and I've voted Democratic my entire life. But seeing a candidate like Clinton with such close ties to Wall Street, Kissinger, the Bush clan, etc. .... DISGUSTS ME.
Much talk about the disintegration of the republican party. There is a much greater chance that the Democratic party will implode upon itself in the aftermath of this election. If Clinton is elected and takes Sanders' advice and works for the good of all Americans, she can save the Democratic party. If she does not, I will leave the Democratic party because it will no longer represent me. I believe there are millions who feel the same. My loyalty is to principles and not to a party.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)if you don't have a large check in your hand.
Whadayathink? Will Hillary be the first person to win the Presidency as a millionaire and leave as a billionaire? Pretty aggressive goal but I think she can do it.
DemonGoddess
(5,127 posts)I've been a registered and voting DEMOCRAT my entire adulthood. I'll take what you said a bit further, and say that primaries and caucuses should be CLOSED. I want Dems selecting the nominee.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Response to bravenak (Reply #2)
femmedem This message was self-deleted by its author.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)an Independent.
He is not a Democrat and is simply using the "Establishment" to run in the election and get media exposure.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Yep yep yep
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)
yurbud
(39,405 posts)How many Democrats are in favor of corruption, privatizing government services to create perpetual campaign donation machines, trade deals that screw American AND foreign workers, and endless wars that have nothing to do with the safety of average Americans? Or how about letting Wall Street privatize and dictate how we run public schools? Or only getting as much health care reform as the insurance companies will allow?
If the DLC/New Dem/Third Way or whatever they call themselves sold their policies honestly and were held accountable for the effects of those policies, they would not be allowed to run as Democrats--or they would chase all old-fashioned Democrats out of the party.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)More of us voted for her.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)And he had the nerve to ask what the Democratic Party will do for him.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I do not like the attitude
left-of-center2012
(34,195 posts)When you Google "the Democratic establishment",
you get a photo of Hillary Clinton embracing Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
Ghost Dog
(16,881 posts)
Shadowflash
(1,536 posts)The status quo is FAR too profitable and they are not going to voluntarily stop their gravy train.
And yet the rubes are voting to keep it going.
EdwardBernays
(3,343 posts)man of few w
(55 posts) cprise
(8,445 posts)If Clinton gets in she'll be holdin the bag. The anti-Obama rhetoric she'll have to employ will make her first campaign look like a practice run.
TexasTowelie
(127,350 posts)and can foresee that he may not win the nomination is in a position to issue requirements to the candidate winning the nomination. Why would the winning candidate feel obligated (or be held hostage) to accept any of the requirements from the losing candidate?
If Bernie decides not to endorse the Democratic nominee then is he actually a Democrat in the first place? If he does not endorse Clinton if she is the nominee then should he be considered for any leadership positions within the party after the election?
Why does Bernie believe that he can impose his will on Hillary and is that the democratic (little D) thing to do? If Clinton wins the majority of delegates, then the only things that Bernie should do is concede and request (not require) that Clinton try to enact his policies. If anything, some humility is what is required when defeated and he should realize his weakened negotiation position.
At the same time, Clinton should also show humility by considering his ideas. However, it would not be a wise move on her part to discard her platform if she wins the nomination and it would make her appear weak if she shifted her positions dramatically. She is much more likely to win independent voters by moving to the center than by moving further to the left to gain voters who have adamantly said that they would never vote for her.
djean111
(14,255 posts)newly politically active supporters would follow. The DNC does not "own" them.
IMO, they would not. And even if Hillary did pinky swear to Bernie's conditions, only a damned fool would believe her.
Bernie is more of a real Democrat than most of the DNC, it seems to me. I don't just blindly vote for the letter any more.
Thespian2
(2,741 posts)especially not for a lying corporate shill and life-long grifter...and they may not be Bernie supporters at all...
Chicago1980
(1,968 posts)Thespian2
(2,741 posts)Martin Eden
(15,629 posts)If it is, then you do in effect have "requirements" that need to be met in order for a candidate to win your vote.
Same goes for Bernie and his endorsement or withholding thereof.
This is politics at the national level with the highest stakes possible, including the future of the Democratic Party. You may disagree, but many of us have seen Our Party drift steadily to the right (I've been a voter since 1976). Many of us embrace the candidacy of Bernie Sanders -- an independent who defines himself as a Democratic Socialist -- as a movement to bring the Democratic Party back to where it belongs, serving the interests of the vast majority of the people.
The extent to which that movement holds political power, even if doesn't win the nomination, is the extent to which it can influence the direction of the party. For now, Bernie Sanders is the leader of this movement, and he would be abdicating that position of leadership if he didn't make every effort to exert that influence to bring about positive change.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)I just get pissed off at idiots, liars and fools and blow a gasket.
Thanks..
Martin Eden
(15,629 posts)Ultimately, we all need to work together for any real progress to be made. Pursuant to that goal, the rational side of my brain knows it is best to put forward a rational argument that tries to avoid belittling the person I'm dealing with. One can be kind without giving an inch. Nothing is gained by burning bridges. My emotional side wants to berate someone for being a misguided fool or a "liar." Quite often, when it comes to real people and not someone running for political office, they have first deceived themselves. I think that's the case with Bravenak, with whom I've had an exchange this morning in this very thread.
I believe The Powers That Be have deliberately fostered the bitter polarization of an American citizenry that is pretty much in the same economic boat. In terms of how government policy actually affects out lives, we have much more in common with the typical teabagger than either "side" has in common with the oligarchs who pull the strings of politicians and the media they've purchased.
I've often used Lincoln's quote "A house divided against itself cannot stand." I believe that applies very much to the American people divided against themselves today. The One Percent want us to be at each others throats instead of turning our collective attention to them. Until we find a way to stand together and make our representative democracy work for our common interests, wealth and power will continue to be concentrated in a few hands.
Overcoming these bitter divisions will be very difficult. If Democratic voters in a forum like this are at each others throats, how can we ever hope to build the bridges which are absolutely essential to building a better future?
debunction.junction
(127 posts)You wrote, "it would make her appear weak if she shifted her positions dramatically."
Hillary has already shifted her positions dramatically in Bernie's direction in an attempt "to gain voters who have adamantly said that they would never vote for her." Bernie supporters (Democrats and Independents) do not believe her pandering. They do not call Hillary "Miss Weathervane" for nothing.
You wrote, "She is much more likely to win independent voters by moving to the center than by moving further to the left"
For Hillary to move to the center, she would have to move to the left where the Independents are. According to Dr. Google:
According to the polling data, Independents like Bernie Sanders more than they like Hillary Clinton — a lot more. Sanders leads Clinton by 36% among Independents, who are 43% of the electorate,
“More Independents think Sanders shares their values compared to Clinton by 47-33%;
more Independents think Sanders authentically ‘cares about the needs and problems of people like’ them, compared to Clinton, by 59-40%;
and vastly (38%) more Independents, 64% to 26% — and even a further corroborating margin of Republicans, 39% to 7% — think Sanders ‘is honest and trustworthy,’ compared to Clinton.
TexasTowelie
(127,350 posts)I see that you are using a December 15 article from the Inquisitor that refers to a Quinnipiac poll. However, the article does not support your assertion that independents are to the left of either Clinton or the Democratic party. Independents in that poll may support Sanders because he isn't part of the establishment (which is somewhat ridiculous since he has in Congress for decades), but it's a stretch to categorize those independents as being aligned to the left.
Thanks for pointing me to Dr. Google though. It provides relevant experience about how someone can read data and create a narrative to suit their purposes.
debunction.junction
(127 posts)It is not my intention to be argumentative. So I guess there is no dispute about the numbers, just the reasoning behind them.
It was not my intention to assert that the article supported independents being aligned to the left. It did kind of appear like that didn't it. MY BAD. Sorry I was not more clear.
It was my assertion that Independents are center, and that Hillary and today's Democratic Party are to the right of center, at least from where the center used to be.
With the Main Stream Media bought and paid for, where would we be today without Dr. Google. 
Have a great Easter Weekend.
TexasTowelie
(127,350 posts)the Democratic Party and Clinton regardind which is further to the left. I believe that there are some independents that are to the left of the Democratic Party and Clinton, but I think that the vast majority are somewhere between Democrats and the GOP.
Peace be with you and I also hope you have a great Easter weekend. 
debunction.junction
(127 posts)
blackspade
(10,056 posts)As a lifelong Democrat, he speaks for me, and I demand that the establishment incorporate parts of his platform on climate change, social justice, economic justice, and election reform if they want my vote assuming Clinton wins.
I will not bow my head and kiss the ring without something in return. That is how democracy works.
thesquanderer
(13,006 posts)A strong runner up can achieve some influence.
Please see post #136.
TexasTowelie
(127,350 posts)However, issuing ultimatums to the winning candidate is also likely to backfire. His support in Vermont could even vanish if the voters there believe that he is the factor that threw the election to Trump.
As far as the situation regarding Jesse Jackson and Walter Mondale were concerned the dynamics were substantially different. Mondale was a weak candidate and the race was especially close between Mondale and Gary Hart. Mondale also knew he was facing a popular incumbent president so he needed to solidify the support that he had.
thesquanderer
(13,006 posts)He'll try to get whatever he can. That doesn't mean he's looking to throw the election to Trump! In fact, he even said early on that he would not run 3rd-party because the *most* important thing is not allowing a Republican to win the WH.
madaboutharry
(42,033 posts)This coming from a man who only became a Democrat in order to run for President. Sanders has no standing to demand anything from the Democratic party.
djean111
(14,255 posts)The DNC, IMO, only welcomed him so they could scoop up his supporters and any money he raised.
People should stop acting like Bernie forced his way in to the Democratic Party. They were just using him. Again, IMO.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)and the millions more we will win in the remaining primaries.
And there's nothing we stand for that is unpopular with the electorate.
The nation wants corporate power put in check.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)drray23
(8,759 posts)of him being very arrogant by his colleagues in the house and senate. Some time ago, Barney Frank was interviewed and said as much. Nobody likes him in congress because he feels he has the ultimate truth and can not bring himself to see other people's point of view. He would regularly shoot himself in the foot rather than work with his colleagues in the senate to get something done. His way or the highway. Similar comments were made regarding how he behaved as a mayor back then in Vermont.
Punkingal
(9,522 posts)drray23
(8,759 posts)It is no secret that Bernie was never part of the process in congress.
Here is a good article which summarizes his interactions with colleagues and staff during his tenure in congress.
http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/article/2015/09/29/bernie-sanders/
BuddhaGirl
(3,708 posts)Sanders better get behind Clinton, FFS! Trump needs to be defeated 
debunction.junction
(127 posts)Last edited Fri Mar 25, 2016, 10:47 AM - Edit history (1)
Bernie supporters under 30 do not give a damn about the Democratic Party. They certainly owe no allegiance to a party who has proven it does not give a damn about them.
Obviously, Independents who make up 43% of the electorate do not give a damn about the Democratic Party. Many of whom used to be Democrats, before the party abandoned them.
Bernie is running as a Democrat because the two party system is rigged, in that a legitimate third party candidate is a spoiler. We need look no further than Ross Perot who put Bill Clinton in the White House with 43% of the vote. Would you prefer he ran as an Independent guaranteeing a Republican in the White House?
thesquanderer
(13,006 posts)A strong runner up can achieve some influence.
Please see post #136.
Eric J in MN
(35,639 posts)...get his supporters to support Clinton.
This article mischaracterized the question.
Cenk Uygur's question starts at 16:47:
Duval
(4,280 posts)Democat
(11,617 posts)Unless anyone is hoping for President Trump.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)There's no good reason for anyone on your side of this to insist that HRC make no significant concessions to the Sanders movement in the platform or on the question of how the party should be run.
There are no significant groups of voters in the fall who will only vote HRC if she makes a big, heavy-handed show of not giving us anything.
liberal N proud
(61,194 posts)There is a reason he IS an independent. He can't play by the rules and getting beat by the rules isn't working for him or the BS'ERS.
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)That "Establishment" that he so despises were elected by the people. That "establishment" represents our elective representatives that must be negotiated with in order to get anything done. Sanders" repulsion to compromise is the same strategy employed by the Tea Party. How has that strategy worked out for them ?
seabeckind
(1,957 posts)From a different thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016148818
The bankruptcy and speedy sell-off of the A&P supermarket chain last year has revealed three pension plans covering more than 21,000 former employees as a financial train wreck, forcing a U.S. government agency to come to the rescue at the cost of about $288 million.
The announcement was made last week by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC), a federal agency that insures pensions managed by private companies. PBGC is assuming direct control over the failed plans and will be responsible for making monthly pension payments to the former employees for decades into the future, according to spokesperson Nidia Yáñez.
The PBGC rescue was triggered when the bankrupt grocery chain—which operated some 300 stores in six states in the Mid-Atlantic region—sold off its assets while firing almost all of its 28,000 employees. That left the three pension plans with no source of future income, but too little cash to pay the pension benefits already earned by the former A&P employees, Yáñez says.
http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/18999/ap_supermarket_chain_stiffs_21000_pensioners_government_will_pick_up_288_mi
If you're not upset about that.....
Chicago1980
(1,968 posts)That "Establishment" may have been elected by the people, but they're not always working for the people.
To often they're working for the mega corporate donors. And you know this to be true.
Negotiation shouldn't mean selling out.
"Sanders repulsion to compromise is the same strategy employed by the Tea Party".
You can actually place that comparison into a sentence with a straight face?
snort
(2,334 posts)Was that highlighted in this mornings mailer?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)How depressing.
seabeckind
(1,957 posts)Here are the principles that Bernie is insisting on (from the article):
1. making sure the party embraces his anti-establishment platform
2. expands its base.
3. revitalize the Democratic Party
4. make it a party of the people rather than one of large campaign contributors
5. single-payer health care system
6. $15 an hour minimum wage
7. tougher regulation of the finance industry
8. closing corporate tax loopholes
9. vigorous effort to address climate change.
There you go. Argue against those principles, not against Bernie the man. Are these good things that the democratic party should embrace?
Or should we go with the other guys?
How about you start asking how YOUR candidate feels about these issues?
yourpaljoey
(2,166 posts)Maedhros
(10,007 posts)ISSUES, not PERSONA.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)He's softening the blow for the 'Not Hillary' Party.
stonecutter357
(13,045 posts)He can get the hell out of my party.
alarimer
(17,146 posts)Deciding who gets to be a member.
mac56
(17,821 posts) Herman4747
(1,825 posts)
How a Democrat can actually support Hillary is beyond me.
frylock
(34,825 posts)Membership to YOUR party will probably be close to the mid-twenties after this shit show.
Loki
(3,830 posts)Yea, I thought so. None. He was never a member of the Democratic Party, and he will go back to being not a member of the Democratic Party. This was for convenience only. Let him build the Democratic Socialist Party on his own.
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)Will he insist that Hillary shamelessly travel from college campus to college campus promising students with big debt that some tooth fairy will appear ?
ProfessorGAC
(76,706 posts)Kennedy/Humphrey
Nixon/Wallace
Carter/Anderson
Reagan/41
Those are four obvious examples in just the last 55 years.
thesquanderer
(13,006 posts)
Vinca
(53,994 posts)Demanded the Obama campaign pay her outstanding campaign bills.
Loki
(3,830 posts)Vinca
(53,994 posts)blackspade
(10,056 posts)I thought this answer was one of the best.
zentrum
(9,870 posts)…..concerned about us, our welfare and the movement. It's never been about him, personally.
If you flip this and look at what she would demand of him, it's quite depressing. She'd ask him to cut back expectations on education, health care, wages, social security and to set a time line corporations "would support on the environment". She'd demand that he ask working people to just tread water for another 4 years and learn to embrace trade deals.
wilt the stilt
(4,528 posts)We are witness to a temper tantrum by Bernie and his supporters. It is akin to "you're with us or you're against us". If Bernie was just a little older he would have been at those "red camps" in the Catskills. Running off to Vermont was basically the same thing.
Eric J in MN
(35,639 posts)NT
alarimer
(17,146 posts)She can't ignore what voters want.
All of the principles Sanders espouses were or are part of a typical Democratic platform. Why do Hillary supporters hate these things? I don't believe they really do because they are very much the same things a Democrat like Wellstone and Feingold used to stand for. It's only the "independent" label that sticks in their craw. But I believe that it is extremely important for people that we take back the Democratic Party from the corporate shills, from the Third Way dirtbags who care more about enriching their buddies than about doing what's right for the people.
I can't really say what I want to here, but her supporters make me so angry. In addition to ignoring her many, many faults, they demonize good people who want the Democratic Party to be what it used to be before the forces of evil (i.e. Third Way, DLC, etc) took it over. There is a lot of anger out there; times have been tough for too many people for too long. Yet mainstream Democrats (I include Hillary herself here, as well as her supporters) seem to think all is hunky-dory, that everything will only get better. People out there recognize that it will not change, not without radical change. It is not about "free" stuff; it is about making this country live up to its principles. It's about a return to the New Deal. Almost everyone here agrees that was a good thing, right?
yourpaljoey
(2,166 posts)This is a new kind of voter, they will not back more Third Way just to see a D win.
If Hill 'wins' the Primary she better get ready to stand alone.
These new voters will not be on board... they have been shocked to the reality of what
voting can accomplish because Bernie has opened their eyes... she offers exactly what
they have come out to fight against.
Kittycat
(10,493 posts)And you missed this. I recommend the first post for starters.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1571362
man of few w
(55 posts)Unlike some of the editorials posted to LBN. (I thank the moderators for locking them.)
Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)
LuvLoogie
(8,815 posts)Fetch my slippers and run my bath!
Eric J in MN
(35,639 posts)NT
LuvLoogie
(8,815 posts)The ARRA legislation kept my family and I out of poverty after I got laid off in '09. Legislation that the Clinton administration and Congress passed in the 90s allowed for in home early intervention therapy for my daughter who was born 2 months premature in 08.
The VA bill provided a loan guarantee that helped my wife and I get our small home. After the layoff, hospitalizations and leave of absences related to my daughter's issues left us even more financially stressed. After fighting off foreclosure and a couple of judicial sell dates, we are one payment left on our trial loan period before having our mortgage modified. The modification is possible due to legislative Democratic solidarity during the financial meltdown of 09.
This was all before Bernie decided to become a Democrat for the exposure. So he can take his "what have you done for me lately" sanctimony and get a real platform.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)Let's move on to the General Campaign.
Eric J in MN
(35,639 posts)NT
hack89
(39,181 posts)
DCBob
(24,689 posts)I am sure Hillary will work with him on getting his message (some of it) into her platform. We certainly do need his supporters.
Eric J in MN
(35,639 posts)He answered a question about if Hillary Clinton wins the nomination.
stopbush
(24,808 posts)And Sanders is a LOSER.
Chicago1980
(1,968 posts)That's something I could 100% get on bored with.
djean111
(14,255 posts)She is doing what she is told to do.
Chicago1980
(1,968 posts)She's doing what she told and what she wants because of $$ and perhaps pure ignorance.
pandr32
(14,272 posts)Democrats are the Party of the People, Hillary Clinton has more voters, and Sanders has only half of his donations from small, individual donations even though he talks as though it all is. He just lately returned improper donations only after the FEC was investigating.
MuseRider
(35,176 posts)Somebody has to make sure our employees work for us.
Dems to Win
(2,161 posts)For the Clinton Democrats, it's cool that banks steal millions of homes via mortgage fraud and no bankers go to jail -- just as long as the bankers steal equally from white and black and brown people.
For the Clinton Democrats, it's fine that a quarter of each health care dollar is wasted on for-profit insurance companies that do nothing but harass people who need actual health care -- as long as white, brown, and black people are harassed equally.
As long as The Powers That Be are equally shitty to people of all colors, the Clinton Democrats see no problems.
I don't agree with this philosophy, so I'm going to be changing my registration at the end of primary season if Clinton gets the nomination.
Eric J in MN
(35,639 posts)Of course, Bernie Sanders would endorse Hillary Clinton, and vice versa.
Cenk Uygur asked Sanders what he'd say if the Democratic Party asked him to take his movement and "make sure they vote for the Establishment candidate."
Sanders' implicit answer is that he can't turn the movement into a pro-Clinton movement by endorsing her.
Sanders says the Democratic Party would have to become a "party of the people rather than one of large campaign contributors," with town-halls in football stadiums to get his movement to support it.
Uygur's question starts at 16:47:
beastie boy
(13,283 posts)And most of the items on that wish list are already in Hillary's platform. So they have already been met.
Bernie can certainly count on Hillary not to go back on them.
And the rest of them? Losers don't dictate terms.
misterhighwasted
(9,148 posts)?
Uponthegears
(1,499 posts)the fact that this has been cross-posted the Hillary Group by another (even more so than myself) newbie makes me think it is flame bait -- and one of my favorite people on the other (i.e., the Hillary) side has, once again, not let an opportunity for flaming to go by (and, IMHO and for whatever reason, seems determined to push Bernie voters into NOT supporting Hillary), both sides need to calm the f down.
Regardless of who gets the nomination, current polling indicates that Bernie speaks for close to one-half of the potential democratic voters in the November election. There has never been a time when a candidate with level of support has been shut out of determining the Democratic platform. Certainly Hillary was not showed that kind of disrespect from Obama in 2008. Bernie deserves (and I want to believe will receive) a substantial say in the party platform.
That being said, if Hillary gets the nomination (not a done deal, but getting closer), where there are fundamental policy differences, hers will prevail. Not to be trite, but elections have consequences. Bernie understands this; deep down everyone understands this.
The chest-thumping that is going on in this thread belongs in a sandbox, not in a serious discussion.
cloudythescribbler
(2,598 posts)And the demands of victory -- as big a Democratic landslide as possible so that Congressional gains can be maximized -- will in turn require Hillary and her delegates to make plenty of concessions, both internal to the party and in the platform. Is this a case of the loser dictating the platform? Of course not! As a Bernie supporter since day 1 (and among those strongly urging that he should run before he made the plunge) I understand that each platform position needs to be approved by a majority of the delegates, and that implicitly means that some Hillary delegates will have to go along.
As for Bernie's conditions, they are an initial statement of position. I don't think it is likely that he and all the Bernie delegates will get EVERYTHING on that list. I suspect that, for example, on health care, an issue of special importance to Hillary, her approach and not MediCare for all will be the party platform. But surely SOME changes to her position, in particular a party plank that insists that individual states or groups of states be able to freely opt for single-payer systems WITHOUT prejudice to the federal healthcare dollars. Will the present Congress pass that -- or with a GOP House just about anything in either Bernie's or Hillary's platform? No. But that doesn't mean one should limit the party to what a troglodyte gerrymandority in the House is willing to accept. And that goes for everything else in the platform.
On the minimum wage, Bernie's $15 per hour is something to be phased in over a fair number of years, while Hillary's $12 is projected to happen much quicker. I imagine again that on this plank the end result will sound more like her platform than his -- but you never know what delegates at the Convention might support. The same goes for financial regulation. A return to an (updated of course) Glass-Steagall is another point that might get a majority of delegates, though most of the financial regulation stuff I would expect will be Hillary's platform (I would expect most delegates would support the financial transaction tax). And on public education, again there might be some concessions, but I wouldn't expect the end result would be Bernie's very reasonable call for tuition-free higher public education.
Then there are a whole lot of other demands. I would imagine that there would be a number of specific demands about election process that will be hard-fought, but which Sanderistas should insist on. Replacing Debbie Wasserman Schultz and others who have little sense of fair play for the progressive wing of the party with more progressive-friendly leadership, together with a more democratic way of deciding on the number and timing of debates is key. So is categorical opposition (I hope) to 'closed' primaries and caucuses. Getting superdelegates reduced in number and excluding all the lobbyists is a logical compromise. And there are no doubt innumerable other things.
On climate change, a key issue, I would hope that VERY specific demands be included in the hardline demands of Sanderistas, including a call for nationally televised hearings (which even just winning the senate would be sufficient to accomplish) focusing on the 350.org issues specifically and how much more dire the climate issue is than even the best of neoliberals like Gore on the issue highlight would be one that I would suggest. But there are others.
Also, whatever the quite valid criticisms of Bernie's shortcomings on his campaign's, including errors of omission to criticize his supporters loudly and clearly when they speak or act inappropriately in this area, it is one thing I would hope and expect of the Sanderistas to INSIST that extensive specific language and demands about the 'new Jim Crow' including policy particulars that in truth NEITHER campaign has adequately addressed should be able to garner wide support at the Convention. Because of the nature of politics (with it unlikely that delegates pledged to Hillary would be the ones to rock the boat in this or most any area vis-a-vis her platform), the best chance of this positive change would in my estimation come from the 'grassroots' of Bernie delegates if it happens at all.
The notion that because Bernie, who has already topped 6 million votes and counting, and his delegates should NOT have any significant voice in the platform because of his background as a registered Independent is a non-starter. This is about constituencies and policies not personality. (The latter may indeed influence how individuals vote, but that will have already happened by the time the negotiating over the platform between the two camps starts). I would also say that it is preposterous now or after the Convention, no matter who the nominee is, for Sanderistas to extend criticisms of Hillary to her supporters. MILLIONS of those who voted for Hillary are, in my arrogant opinion (IMAO), very possible recruits to the progressive wing of the Democratic Party in the future. And under a Hillary presidency I have no doubt that many who voted for her will pretty soon have progressive reasons to demand more of the Administration.
These are the vague outlines of where this most likely should be headed. And of course, making significant concessions to Bernie at the Convention will make it SO MUCH easier to try to minimize the number of "Bernie or Bust" folk should Hillary be the nominee. I like Jill Stein and in noncompetitive states (both solid blue AND solid red) see little reason to insist that people not vote for her though I like my actions to be consistent with my national politics. And staying home is just perverse. I expect that if Hillary is the nominee and she and her minions shrewdly avoid the dismissiveness and rancor towards him and his backers that some, coming out of all the silliness that always characterizes DU during competitive primaries, Bernie and virtually ALL his organization will passionately strive to keep the White House OUT of the hands of Donald Trump and to elect a Congress at least capable of approving Democratic nominees to the Supreme Court, even if significant progressive legislation (of which there was some, at least, in the 2009-2010 period) may have to wait. It is precisely the ability to rise above the awful things said about Bernie & Sanderistas and about Hillary and her supporters here on DU that will be what no doubt BOTH Bernie and Hillary will be working for avidly after the Convention
After the election comes another phase. I hope Bernie stays in the Democratic fold long enough to establish the foundation/framework of some kind of long-term active mobilization of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. And it should not be long, if Hillary becomes president, for his base at the core of that starter effort (starting the day after the election) before the organized progressive opposition rapidly diversifies in terms of race/ethnicity, age, etc. The Democrats need much more fire under the feet of the leadership than especially the senate faced in 2009-10, to really force the whole filibuster issue.
Above all it should be clear that these issues transcend issues of personality, however much the pull to see the individuals involved first.
Gregorian
(23,867 posts)Not only was he on TYT, but he genuinely loved being there. He was finally not being sandbagged. He was asked real, legitimate question.
The other best part was that when asked about having Clinton in his cabinet, there was simply no fucking way.
Lydia Leftcoast
(48,223 posts)1. "Left" and "right" are meaningless terms unless you specify "left" and "right" on which issue.
We can safely say that the mainstream Democrats are "left" on personal issues, such as sexuality.
However, the mainstream Democrats are to the "right" on political and economic issues, such as trade, the finance industry, health care (taking Mitt Romney's plan nationwide), and foreign policy.
2. For Hillary supporters to spend so much energy dissing a candidate who has awakened otherwise non-voting independents is just, well, suicidal.
There may be a few hotheads who are in the "Bernie or no one" category, but most are not. Most of us will reluctantly vote for Hillary if she is the nominee, especially if we feel that she has won fair and square and that the whole nation has had a chance to vote.
However, win or lose, Bernie's wins and near-wins in several states should be a wake-up call to the Democratic Party that tagging along with the Republicans as they edge rightward is a losing strategy and alienates more people than it attracts.
hollowdweller
(4,229 posts)I live in WV and in a lot of the rural areas there's NO good jobs. In a lot of these areas the only jobs that pay a living wage are coal mining, teaching or some sort of gov't job.
However the gov't jobs are less now than before the recession.
These jobs with good pay are the ones that keep the local handyman, the garage, the restaurant, the hardware store and others open.
Upping the min to 15 would really inject a LOT of money into some of these rural areas where most jobs are min wage. Many of the jobs paying less are national chains and they could afford to pay it but it would help the rural areas so much.
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)is paying his campaign "grunts" $15/hr?
desmiller
(747 posts)your candidate busy flipping like a tossed quarter. Calling volunteers "grunts" is absolutely foolish. It's not about pay, it's dedication. Like I'm going to dedicate a few seconds of my time in putting you......... in my naughty list!!!!
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)while he is paying CEO pay scale to his executives........
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)it'll likely be that cold ady in hell...
iandhr
(6,852 posts)I didn't think that was possible.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)He "berned" a lot of bridges during his campaign. Is he going back to being on Thom Hartman's show?
I for one won't be a listener any more.
Also what about TYT and all those blogs who were in the tank for him? What about MoveOn? Most of us have stopped supporting them.
All those organizations who hitched their wagon to Sanders are going to have to rebuild relationships
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)
forest444
(5,902 posts)And if the GOP doesn't obstruct them once she takes office, she'll be sure to let them wither on the vine.
Chakaconcarne
(2,787 posts)If he loses (and I hope he doesn't)....she should pick him for vp.
forest444
(5,902 posts)My guess is that while she might be tempted to ask (Bernie would help bring the progressive wing on board, and wouls be good "insurance" besides), Bernie will probably say no.
Given the choice, he'll probably want to hold on to his influential Senate seat - all the more so if, as polls suggest, the Democrats retake the Senate this November (fingers crossed).
Beacool
(30,518 posts)He's too old and from VT. She'll pick someone younger than herself and from a more diverse state.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)Bernie supporters would vote for Hillary.
LannyDeVaney
(1,033 posts)Wibly
(613 posts)Claiming Sanders, ". . . badly trails Clinton in delegates for the Democratic nomination" is pure conjecture and spin.
Its only true if the super delegates are counted, but the fact is, the super delegates can change their mind anytime up to, and during the convention.
Based on the popular vote, Sanders does not trail Clinton by such a large amount, and there are more than enough delegate remaining to allow a Sanders win.
I would suggest that using spin instead of fact to make your argument is the equivalent of relying on a National Enquirer story for facts.
okasha
(11,573 posts)Sanders trails Hillsry by:
300 pledged delegates,
450 unpledged delegates
2.000.000 popular votes.
Oh, my stats! They're TIED!!!!!!
The latest count is: Clinton 1234, Sanders 956.
The super delegates are not counted until the convention. They can change at any time.
Don't know where you get your numbers, but they are hype, not fact.
okasha
(11,573 posts)
MadamX2016
(2 posts)"Sanders also listed policy demands he would make of Clinton, including a single-payer health care system, a $15 an hour minimum wage, tougher regulation of the finance industry, closing corporate tax loopholes and “a vigorous effort to address climate change.”
(1) Mrs. Clinton already has a plan for the financial industry.
(2) She has a plan to mitigate and fortify low lying areas, as well as military shipyards.
(3) She has a plan for $12 minimum wage, which could graduate to $15 in four years. Bernie has a minimum wage in Vermont of $9.90 graduating to $15 in four years.
Single-payer health care is not going to happen. Bottom line is no endorsement from Bernie Sanders.
BTW there is a falsehood being spread on Facebook - Hillary's caucus letter https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10154049325642258&set=gm.251868991820755&type=3&theater
Hillary letter caucus location
Location https://www.google.com/search?q=pacific+city+hall%2C+100+3rd+avenue%2C+se&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
Other caucus location
Location http://www.whitepages.com/business/washington-united-way-seattle-wa
Same phone number - Find your polling location
Phone in letter : 206-583-0664
Anyone with a grain of common sense would have called the phone number and learned it is the main number for the Washington Democratic Party, rather than create the impression Mrs. Clinton is devious. I am sure you see just how easy it is to fall into the trap of accusing her of being untrustworthy and dishonest, but ignorance does not excuse the malice.
Please explain to me, in what world would Mrs. Clinton not have access to democratic voter information to send out letters? This is why Bernie Sanders' claimed he needed to sue the DNC! Short-term memory, folks?
#anarchy2016
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)If you want Sanders' voters, you have to actually appeal to us. same as every other voting group you can think of.
problem is, I would bet dollars to donuts that clinton really, honestly, truly thinks she can coast by, hoping for "Anyone but Trump" republican voters to shore her up in the GE.
And hten we have her followers who - to a one - seem far more concerned with humiliating the left than with actually winning the GE.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)Crazy, I know
Lorien
(31,935 posts)though the House of Clinton seems to believe that it is.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)Lorien
(31,935 posts)he certainly won't endorse her. Right now there's obvious election fraud going on EVERYWHERE: https://www.facebook.com/groups/1649941911932852/?fref=nf
Gothmog
(179,869 posts)
Beacool
(30,518 posts)Sanders doesn't give a fig about the party, or unity, or anything that doesn't move forward his agenda. The man is an ideologue. Hillary is not going to agree to his first demand, there's no way to pass single payer through Congress.
Zira
(1,054 posts)
pat_k
(13,375 posts)The bastard!
RandySF
(84,298 posts)I guess when he only meant himself when he first talked about supporting the nominee.