2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumSanders after Obama clinched with superdelegates: "party has chosen its nominee"
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/281302-sanders-takes-different-position-on-superdelegates-than-he-did-in-2008But Sanders struck a different tone in 2008, when he told his hometown newspaper, the Burlington Free Press in Vermont, that he planned to play a very active role in supporting Obama.
I will do everything I can to see that he is elected president, he said at the time.
That interview was published on June 5, 2008, two days after the last Democratic contests but two days before Clinton suspended her campaign.
The story also noted that Sanders said he held off supporting either of the Democrats because he has made it a custom not to support any Democrat for the presidential nomination until the party had chosen its nominee.
At that point, however, Obama had 1,766.5 pledged delegates and Clinton had 1,639.5, according to data from RealClearPolitics. In 2008, 2,118 total delegates were required to secure the nomination.
At present, Clinton has 1,768 pledged delegates to Sanderss 1,497, according to the AP. But the news service also counts Clinton as having the backing of 537 superdelegates to only 42 for Sanders.
What happened to that Bernie Sanders?
RandySF
(58,447 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)writes3000
(4,734 posts)politicaljunkie41910
(3,335 posts)As a Californian, I'm looking forward to this all being over tomorrow. Then we can start to rebuild the Democratic party with or without Bernie.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)and I look forward to keeping this thread kicked through most of next week.
Sid
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)That would be on endless rewind all over the internets after tuesday
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)UMTerp01
(1,048 posts)Garrett78
(10,721 posts)I guess the only reason Sanders or his supporters might put forth as an explanation is that Obama wasn't facing potential legal trouble (Sanders, though, used to not care about Clinton's "damn emails" . But even in the unlikely event that Clinton doesn't become the nominee, Sanders still won't be the nominee. The convention would be brokered and the delegates would turn to someone else.
On a side note, I really wish DU would do something to cut down on repeat threads.
BreakfastClub
(765 posts)Txbluedog
(1,128 posts)thesquanderer
(11,970 posts)Let's see what he does after Washington DC this year before noting this possible hypocrisy. (Who knows, maybe he'll even surprise you and give you the announcement you want even before then.)
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Garrett78
(10,721 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)as he did then. We don't want someone that is beholden to the big corporations. Why would you?
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)You don't think Goldman Sachs was a huge contributor to the Obama campaign?
brewens
(13,536 posts)would be better. Now if both of them were running, I'd be dead set against them. We've learned a lot the last eight years. We can't take more of the same. That's the reason for Bernie and his movement. We're not going away.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)I have the same expectations for a Clinton Admin as I had for the Obama Admin. And I truly don't get why others don't.
The US political system has been what it is for a very long time.
thesquanderer
(11,970 posts)So a continuation of the same is not necessarily a positive for everybody.
True, "the US political system has been what it is for a very long time." Not everyone wants to vote to support that if there is an apparent alternative. Not everyone has reached the point of being resigned to things being the same as they has been.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)No one is taking his latest nonsense seriously.
sheshe2
(83,637 posts)qdouble
(891 posts)just hoping Sanders won't be an ass and give up the charade before or right after DC votes.
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)uponit7771
(90,301 posts)realmirage
(2,117 posts)Lucinda
(31,170 posts)Meteor Man
(385 posts)Devine also cautioned against prejudging the outcome of the remaining primaries. He noted that New Jersey and California had both voted in March 2008, whereas this year primaries in both states are only now coming down the pike.
So this was 2 or 3 months after California and New Jersey voted. That could be relevant.
Its quite clear that there is a limited possibility that he will be the nominee, Sheinkopf said. But his attacks can do some damage to Secretary Clinton by reminding people that she is not on the left of the party, for those who feel she ought to be.
Let me make sure I got this right. Bernie's attacks "remind" people that Hillary is not to the left of the party. Hmmmm.
And that's a problem "for those who feel she ought to be."
Ok. I think I got it now.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)this week when he's behind by 275+ pledged delegates after California has voted.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)Clinton today has not clinched the majority of pledged delegates. In terms of pledged delegates, Sanders today is in a better position than Clinton was on May 7, 2008, and yet Clinton stayed in for another month.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Bernie says that's not good enough to claim victory. Bernie says having a majority of all delegates isn't good enough either.
Clinton was not behind by 289 pledged delegates so not sure how your math works.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)there were a lot fewer pledged delegates in 2008. After May 7, Clinton needed something like 80% of the remaining pledged delegates to win a majority. She was 164 pledged delegates behind with only 217 remaining. That doesn't count Michigan and Florida and, of course, ultimately the DNC gave those states half their delegates, but there was no chance that the DNC would do something crazy like give Obama no Michigan delegates (which her campaign ridiculously suggested would be fair).
Side note: The DNC really messed up the 2008 primary with the ridiculous rules about when states could hold their primaries.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Especially since, depending on whether one counted them or not, she was arguably winning the popular vote (Obama won a lot of caucuses). That was a real mess back then, agreed.
Any way one slices it, on Tuesday June 7, 2016 she will be in the same position Obama was on June 3, 2008, and Sanders will be in the same position Clinton was on June 3, 2008.
Personally I have no issue with him fighting on platform, reforming the nomination process etc. But, at some point, he has to stop denying that the voters should have the final say.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)But I don't think he should be accused of being anti-democracy if he carries the fight to the convention. The primary process is what it is, and, unfortunately, it is not a majority-wins process (the election in November won't be that either). Sanders is entitled to play by the rules and seek victory. The process has been stacked against him in many ways, and I can appreciate why he might fight on (even though I think he shouldn't). Barring something really crazy happening, he will lose whether he fights on or not, and he knows that. So the majority of the voters in the primaries will have their way.
thesquanderer
(11,970 posts)not exactly... there will still be one more primary to go. Also, one candidate may still have an FBI investigation hanging over her head. So there are other ways to slice it...
onenote
(42,531 posts)But a more appropriate measuring stick would be comparing 2008 at the same point we are today. Today there are 714 pledged delegates, or approximately 17.6 % of the total, still available to be won. The closest one can come to a comparable point in 2008 is after March 11, 2008, when there were 17.4% of the delegates (566) left to be won (this is assuming for these purposes that no delegates were being counted for FL or MI). At that point, Clinton needed 65 percent of the remaining delegates to get to a majority of the pledged delegates. Today, Sanders needs over 70 percent of the remaining.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)onenote
(42,531 posts)At a comparable point in the nominating process to today (i.e., a comparable percentage of the pledged votes still up for grabs), Clinton was closer to the nomination (albeit pretty far away) than Sanders is today.
Which undercuts your somewhat peculiar claim that Sanders is closer today than Clinton was on May 7, a date that seems to have been chosen either at random or because it fits your narrative, not because it makes any sense.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)onenote
(42,531 posts)Vattel
(9,289 posts)onenote
(42,531 posts)as the point of comparison?
Vattel
(9,289 posts)in terms of pledged delegates, she was in a more hopeless situation than Sanders is today. What this means is that it would be hypocritical for Clinton to say that Sanders should have already dropped out (and to her credit she has not said that). I am glad Sanders has not quit yet. His supporters wanted him to stay in, they would have been demoralized had he already dropped out, and I think it is better for the revolution that he has not dropped out yet. Also, he has continued to get a lot of people to register, most of whom will probably vote for Clinton in the general.
Of course, after the last primary contest, Clinton will have acquired a majority of the total pledged delegates, and then Sanders will be in a situation similar to the one that Clinton was in after the last primary contest in 2008. I suspect that, like Clinton, he will call it quits at that time, but I could be wrong. And it is certainly no violation of any rule for him to wait for the actual convention vote before he stops contesting her nomination. I would recommend against that, but maybe I am missing some reason why he should stay in the race all the way to the convention. I doubt that the reason is that Clinton might be indicted because I am sure Bernie realizes that the probability of that is very small.
onenote
(42,531 posts)Response to Vattel (Reply #27)
onenote This message was self-deleted by its author.
Alfresco
(1,698 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)LexVegas
(6,024 posts)workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)Its a fragile male ego thing.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)He's also decided that the best leverage is to arrive at the convention with as many delegates as he can. I couldn't say for sure whether this is necessarily the "best" way to get as many concessions as he can, but he's also betting on Hillary Clinton's not being a petulant child, and on her documented history of compromise. Seems safe enough.
The revenge fantasies I've seen posted are stupid.
Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)I'm really not seeing how his candidacy is "more" than Barack Obama's or Hillary Clinton's was in 08. And if he's wanting the best leverage he can get, well at some point continuing to fight no longer gives him more leverage and instead takes it away. Trying to win as many delegates as possible during the actual primaries & caucuses is one thing. But continuing to "fight" after every vote has been cast insisting the Democratic Party isn't allowed to go into general election footing until after the convention would forfeit the leverage that he's won.
If he's demanding to still be seen as a candidate for the nomination on July 27, Bernie is more likely to be shut out of the convention entirely than to be given a substantial role in it. The DNC isn't going to allow a floor speech that calls for superdelegates to give the nomination to the 2nd place finisher. If that is actually what Bernie has in mind (and I hope to God it isn't), he'll be throwing away every bit of leverage he's won. He's already been given an unprecedented level of influence over the convention by getting to select some of the rules and platform committee members. That's far more than Hillary got in 08, and she came much closer than Bernie is this year. But in the end the 2nd place candidate doesn't get to dictate the agenda. That doesn't mean getting completely shut out of course, but depending on what course Bernie takes from June 15 onward the DNC could be forced to do that.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)Our candidates' agendas are more distinct this cycle.
Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)The winner decides the agenda, that's how democracy works.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)The platform will be a compromise, and a Cabinet appointment wouldn't surprise me.
The candidates' agendas in '08 weren't distinct, so the platform wasn't a huge compromise.
mcar
(42,278 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)aikoaiko
(34,161 posts)As a Senator he made that decision in the 2008 primary when he did just as other politicians have decided to start working on HRC's behalf in for the GE.
I don't recall seeing anything where Bernie demanded that HRC concede, do you?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)now he's attacking her over the Clinton Foundation and trying to collect the scalps of liberal Democratic leaders like Dan Malloy and Barney Frank out of pique.
His word doesn't mean very much.
aikoaiko
(34,161 posts)He called the taking of money by the Clinton Foundation from countries like Saudi Arabia a conflict of interest while she was dealing with them as SOS.
If that is an attack, it is the most mild and reasonable one ever.
I'm not sure what Bernie said about Dan Malloy, but I've not been impressed with Barney Frank since joining the board of a bank. I can't help but wonder if Barney's unprovoked vitriol toward Bernie was due to his new allegiance to a bank.
beachbum bob
(10,437 posts)verifies a small man who can't handle the big stage