2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumAll who have already called for Sanders to unite behind Clinton will have to regain my respect
You have lost it for now. Not that my individual respect means a hill of beans to anyone, but it is mine to give or not to give and that is where matters stand. Had you waited until this Wednesday, I would likely feel differently about it. I'm not sure I would agree with you on that even then, but then that debate would at least be honorable. Now I find it deplorable. Virtually everyone who is making the case for Sanders to "make peace" now is a die hard Clinton supporter, and it was Hillary Clinton herself who refused to "make peace" in the name of party unity until the voters had had their say and the 2008 primary season was over. Now it is about "stopping Donald Trump". In 2008 it was about life and death and the war in Iraq, and the danger of another pro War Republican again taking control of the White House. At this point in that cycle Hillary remained defiant. As did almost all of her supporters.
At this point in the cycle it is not only about winning or losing, it is also about leverage. Even during her gracious performance at the 2008 Democratic Convention, Hillary was proud to point to "18 million cracks in the glass ceiling". She was counting every vote she won and making sure the whole world, Democratic Party and its presidential nominee included, knew about every one of them. And Hillary fought hard to the bitter end, and was lauded by her supporters for doing so, trying to wrack up each vote that she could. They all contributed to Clinton's continuing standing and power inside of the Democratic Party looking forward, after her defeat by Barack Obama. Had Hillary taken her foot off the throttle weeks earlier than she did, her influence would have been diminished. She would have been viewed predominantly as a defeated rival, not as the leader of a political movement that fell just short of making Hillary President.
The time for Party unity is at the Democratic National Convention, on its final day with all of it's leaders standing arm and arm and smiling together on a stage together. It can happen sooner, sure, but that is subject to negotiations. There is not all that much to negotiate when a contest ultimately is one sided, a commanding victor dictates the terms. That is how a winning camp prefers it of course. That is at the root of much of the weeks, if not months long, frenetic campaign by Team Clinton to force Sanders to concede early defeat - sapping energy from his subsequent campaign. But Sanders isn't just campaigning for himself, he is also fighting for a cause. Had Bernie dutifully backed down when "Party Elders" long ago asked him to, and scaled back the intensity of his campaigning, what he fought for would have faded from the public sphere and public mind.
The highly anticipated vote tomorrow in our nation's largest state would instead have been a mere asterisk on the 2016 election. By fiercely contesting (and potentially winning as a strong underdog) a California Primary that Clinton herself won in 2008, Bernie Sanders ensures that his message will remain front and center at Philadelphia come July. For all those so obsessed with talking about "the Math"; the margin of a victory is as relevant to determining the relative strength of the key elements of a coalition within it, as the outcome is to determining who ultimately heads it. The Democratic Party is and always has been a coalition. In a two Party political system both political parties by necessity become coalitions with various factions having varying degrees of strength.
We, the People, collectively exercise our peak level of influence on the internal dynamics of the Democratic Party during a contested presidential primary season. We, rather than the often personally dedicated insiders of the Party, get to make our own will known through the counting of ballots in every state in the nation that conducts a presidential primary or caucus. Those of us who support Bernie Sanders have already made a strong impact on the Democratic Party through the success to date of Bernie Sander's once thought wildly improbable presidential run. They wanted to ignore us, they thought they could but they couldn't. A few weeks ago they made yet another concerted attempt to turn the page and relegate us again to the past. They wanted voting in California drained of further meaning. Why even bother, hey implied, the race is over?
It is that attitude that I find unforgivable, especially from a camp that eight years ago knew full well why California, and other late voting states, still mattered, irrespective of "the math". Assuming that hundreds of Democratic Super Delegates who now support Hillary Clinton don't discover very compelling reasons to switch to Bernie, Hillary will be our Democratic nominee. Under that likely scenario it will be official by the last day of our national convention. Under a similarly likely scenario we will have Party Unity by then as well. Whether that happens two days from tomorrow or two days into our convention is subject to negotiations, and it takes both sides to conduct a negotiation. I am not any kind of high up Democratic insider. I don't know what was negotiated between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in the final stage of their contest in 2008, or exactly when agreements between them were reached. I do know however that the fact that Hillary carried California over Barack was a relevant factor in those negotiations.
When it comes time to negotiate a contact between organized labor and management sometimes those talks go on past midnight of the day when a strike was threatened to be called. Sometimes a settlement is reached weeks earlier. It all depends on the issues on the table, the relative strength of the parties to the negotiations, how badly each side wants to avoid a strike, and yes, the skill of the negotiators. The deadline for Democratic Unity falls during the Convention in July. I hope a good deal is reached before then, I pray that a good deal is reached by then, but I am not in a position to second guess all of the specific tactics of the negotiators. For now I am focused on urging support for Bernie Sanders in the States voting tomorrow. My reasons for doing so ow are at least as strong as those advanced by Hillary's supporters back in 2008.
tonyt53
(5,737 posts)and that is for you to go away. If Sander's doesn't man-up and face the facts, then he will once again expose himself to be all about one thing - Bernie. Time for his supporters to do the same thing. Enough with the crying foul at every primary. He lost.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Whining: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2137159
Attacking: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2130315
And now this OP demanding we cater to them
Tom Rinaldo
(22,911 posts)Am I not free to choose who I respect and why? Did I make any threats? Hold my vote hostage? Anything?
And as a political writer, aren't you at least willing to comment on the substance of the OP?
tonyt53
(5,737 posts)Tom Rinaldo
(22,911 posts)I don't care if anyone considers my respect worthy of anything, and I insist on nothing from any reader including yourself. A discussion of the points I made would be nice but not necessary
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)personal attack, etc.
You'd think they were Losing.. Good article, BTW, heartfelt and measured. That's why the immediate dustbin barrage.
MariaThinks
(2,495 posts)statement followed by 'what do you mean'.
Tom Rinaldo
(22,911 posts)I turn down challenges all the time if they don't seem worth my effort. I also admitted that my personal respect means little if anything to the vast majority of folks both here and elsewhere. I think I admitted that in the first sentence. After all the dirt that's been thrown around on this board so many here now express outrage over me not respecting the integrity of a position previously taken here by some? And then almost to a person are disinterested in even discussing the lengthy explanation I posted about why that is so? Weak.
Response to Tom Rinaldo (Reply #49)
840high This message was self-deleted by its author.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)he's not destructive of the party, and I "approved" his last press conference. Not bad.
But Tom, you vastly underestimate how profoundly insulting the typical bernista message about me, for instance, is. Every hostile, dishonest slur about Hillary is supposed to be a slap at people like me too, and we know it.
I don't actually expect to ever respect people who behave that way, Tom, just move on and welcome common ground if it appears. They may become slightly more knowledgeable over time, or not, but I'm too old to believe that people get personality transplants. At my age I've known a bunch of people whose world view hasn't changed or deepened significantly in 50 years, and the capacity for self deception and ready hostility toward all who aren't "with" them are always...ready.
In "real" life, people stay away from religion and politics not because they can't keep from quarreling over their coffee but to avoid revelations that destroy respect, and with that friendships.
ciaobaby
(1,000 posts)negativity from one group as I do on this site from the Hillary camp. If you are so certain of victory you should simply back off and watch it happen. If you sincerely want unity than just a bit of civility would be a good place to start.
bahrbearian
(13,466 posts)upaloopa
(11,417 posts)You lost, you didn't get your way, now you still demand that you get your way.
Have some humility.
ciaobaby
(1,000 posts)MariaThinks
(2,495 posts)ciaobaby
(1,000 posts)rateyes
(17,438 posts)go away. Your profile: tatistics and Information
Account status: Active
Member since: Wed Apr 20, 2016, 11:34 AM
Number of posts: 1,077
Number of posts, last 90 days: 1077
Favorite forum: General Discussion: Primaries, 683 posts in the last 90 days (63% of total posts)
Favorite group: Hillary Clinton, 110 posts in the last 90 days (10% of total posts)
Last post: Mon Jun 6, 2016, 11:23 AM
Jury
Willing to serve on Juries: Yes
Chance of serving on Juries: 0% (explain)
1077 total posts: +11
47 days of membership: +5
20 or more posts in the last 90 days: +20
Not a Star member: +0
5 posts hidden in 90 days: -100
TOTAL: 0
Stay tuned. You are gonna get your wish.
rateyes
(17,438 posts)MariaThinks
(2,495 posts)alerting on responses.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)me b zola
(19,053 posts)Response to rateyes (Reply #27)
artislife This message was self-deleted by its author.
2banon
(7,321 posts)Contemptible, Despicable, Disgusting.
Ewwww
MariaThinks
(2,495 posts)Some will vote for Trump, some will write a candidate in, and some will not vote.
I think its a safe bet we have good representation from each group on this board and are wasting our time reaching out with realistic arguments and olive branches.
firebrand80
(2,760 posts)djean111
(14,255 posts)Also - I don't think it is possible to have a meaningful negotiation with a practiced liar.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)are gong to get on our knees and beg you to do what is in your best interest is hilarious. That you would hold your vote hostage over anonymous posters on the internet is entirely your problem.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)... were hurt by anonymous posters on the internet. It's kinda sad really (assuming that they're being truthful).
When someone says things like that, I figure that they'd never vote for Hillary anyway ... so who cares what they demand of us?
Or ... they're not being truthful, and it's all a part of the bloodsport gamesmanship and scoring points by entertaining themselves online.
Either way ... It's all so silly. I can't take them seriously.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)and well thought out and expressed OP. Inspired by your candidate..."What does it matter?"
"I can't take them seriously." Indeed.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)You probably don't give a shit about how I fell after months of my candidate be lied about and slandered and attacked.
Well the feeling is mutual I'm sure.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)nt
Duval
(4,280 posts)It has to do with facts. Deal with it. And Peace Out
glowing
(12,233 posts)Voting against your interests because of your hurt fees fees from anonymous people on the internet is pathetic. Do whatever you please.
rateyes
(17,438 posts)leftynyc
(26,060 posts)or write your pet in. I sincerely don't care.
rateyes
(17,438 posts)you don't care. You've made that abundantly clear this whole primary season. I believe you.
2banon
(7,321 posts)If you don't care, why engage in ad hominum with Bernie supporters?
If you don't care, why the hubris?
If you don't care, what the hell is your point?
If we were Trump supporters, we wouldn't be backing the FDR of our time.
Despicable position you take.
In our view, a vote for Hillary IS a vote for Trump.
The entire premise of this OP is that it is the responsibility of DU Hillary supporters to bow and scrape to Bernie supporters to get them to vote for the Democrat. Got nothing to say about that? Just my attitude that they can look for someone to suck up to them someplace else? Don't like the truth and call it hubris? That's not my problem.
Duval
(4,280 posts)2banon
(7,321 posts)Don't see the need to add anything, it stands alone well enough.
As far as I'm concerned you folks made a striking and clear blow against FDR's political legacy for the party for all time in memorial, as there will be no other FDR candidate representing this party in future national elections.
Sanders is the real deal but your camp pissed on it and worse.
You think we're not aware of how much you could care less?
You and your camp have made your contempt for FDR policies and for those of us fighting to restore those policies abundantly clear.
But we'll carry on with our political reform agenda without your help thank you very much just the same.
ta ta
Tom Rinaldo
(22,911 posts)I didn't even imply that I won't "support Hillary" as our nominee - I dare you to show anywhere where i did. I vote for many reasons, I don't always respect the person I vote for, but in this case I was talking about respect for one's arguments for taking a position. Those who have argued that Sanders needed to drop out made a case that I do not respect for the reasons cited. That is what I stated, not that I would refuse to vote for Hillary over it.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)never, not once so I don't owe you a damn thing.
Tom Rinaldo
(22,911 posts)That may mean we are not disagreeing
Madam Mossfern
(2,340 posts)leftynyc
(26,060 posts)If you think THAT was nasty, you need a much thicker skin to talk about politics. I've been called a right winger, a bigot, a warmonger, a drone, stupid, corrupt - and that was in just the last month.
Madam Mossfern
(2,340 posts)Was the person you posted to one of the people who called you those names?
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)and my remark wasn't nasty. That you think it is is not my problem.
TheKentuckian
(25,018 posts)are being nasty, it just comes part and parcel with being who the are.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)Bernie supporters are complete hypocrites about about the nastiness of their own is sincerely not my problem.
Jester Messiah
(4,711 posts)But yeah, I've been holding my vote hostage for a while now and it's starting to look like I'm gonna have to shoot that sucker. Damn shame it had to come to that.
rateyes
(17,438 posts)LaydeeBug
(10,291 posts)VulgarPoet
(2,872 posts)pinebox
(5,761 posts)but the ideologies which are different.
Bernie supporters are concerned with things which are more of a liberal stance where as Hillary supporters are more concerned with things of a blue dog stance. It's basically people concerned with the welfare of others and environmental issues VS. people concerned with business issues and the economy.
That is where the differences lie.
Those are 2 very big differences and we see that every day here on DU. Personally, I don't think a lot of Bernie supporters will come over to the Hillary side, sorry but I don't see it happening when so many Bernie supporters are from 3rd parties and independents, and there are more of those than there are Dems.
The defining differences are far too apart this time unlike in 2008. Obama and Hillary were much closer in ideology. This time, the bridge is a big one and it's been burned to the ground.
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)Voting Democratic anyway. This whole hostage withholding of votes in the GE If Bernie doesn't win is not honest. I'm willing to bet it's a lot of Nader voters still pissed off about something Al Gore didn't do. Mix in a bunch of Greenies as well.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)I'm not a Dem but an indy myself. I voted Obama both times but what it comes down to is we have a candidate who is seriously flawed & isn't trusted by the majority of Americans and hasn't been in a long while. This could spell disaster.
I don't see this having anything to do with Gore & Nader. If we're going to run with that logic, let's throw Perot in who helped elect Bill Clinton. 2 way street.
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)I'll guarantee that you won't vote Democratic. Greenie maybe.
rateyes
(17,438 posts)Not a Naderite. But I will not be casting a vote for Clinton or Trump. The day after the convention, this voter who has been a Democrat for 38 years is leaving this party. And I know many who will be walking away with me.
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)Bernie has already been rejected by the majority of the voters. Donald Trump thanks you.
rateyes
(17,438 posts)After I have my say at the DNC in July,the real work begins.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)on none, you're pretty much full of shit to make this post.
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)Hillary was one of the most liberal senators in Congress. Not good enough for the purity party apparently but good enough for the 3,000,000+ voters that voted for Hillary
merrily
(45,251 posts)Duval
(4,280 posts)Why do you say things like that?
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)Tal Vez
(660 posts)We are dealing with two professional politicians here. Since they entered the political world, everything that they've experienced has taught them to seek political agreements that will further their goals.
I have no doubt that Clinton and Sanders both want to find a way to pursue common goals. I don't think that they will have much trouble working things out.
And, the vast majority of their followers trust their candidates. As individuals, we all have to ask, "Do I trust my candidate?"
pengu
(462 posts)I can trust him while still not agreeing with him.
SwampG8r
(10,287 posts)And anyone who has said the things i have read here about sanders from hrc supporters show they hate him and by extension me.
The single most honest man in our government has been dehumanized by her supporters in ways even republicans wouldnt touch.
I will not make common cause with those who hate me.
BootinUp
(47,056 posts)TwilightZone
(25,426 posts)Your fellow DUers have insisted for months that Breitbart, Fox News, National Review, FACT, the Blaze, and Judicial Watch are the pillars of journalistic integrity, and you have the nerve to demand that Clinton supporters earn back *your* respect? That's laughable.
Further, 2008 and 2016 aren't comparable. Sanders is 800 delegates behind Clinton. Was Clinton 800 delegates behind Obama going into the final week? This race hasn't been close in months.
Personally, I don't care what you do. The vast majority of Sanders supporters in the real world - not the fantasyland echo chamber that DU has become - have already indicated that they will vote for Clinton in November. Once Sanders drops out and endorses her, the number will increase, and it will increase further as the rest have a little while to contemplate the possibility of President Donald Trump. If you're going to let a few anonymous internet posters influence your vote, you should probably take a step back and reevaluate your decision-making processes.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)I've seen your camp post links to WND and Breitbart as well. That is a 2 way street.
QC
(26,371 posts)and is still a member, though she has been FFR for some time.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)QC
(26,371 posts)Pull my other one, honey. It's got bells on it.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)Robbins
(5,066 posts)many in real world can see no difference between her and republicans.she for crying out loud is appealing to bush donors saying she more repsents their values.Clinton is corporists and neocon.
I will be staying home on election day.I am going from democrat to liberal indepdent.I refuse to ever vote for any dem who
endorsed Clinton in this primary.that is why In Missouri i am not going to vote at all this year.I don't vote for right winger who
are against my self intrests like the social safety net and who support trade deals like TPP and support more war.Supporting clinton means you support all her right wing agenda.
and so called 800 delegate lead is 500 superdelegates.
The entire clinton family can go to hell for all i care.which is what i said about bush family too.no difference between these 2 family.and they sure love to hang out with each other.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)Berners can do what they want to do, I could care less.
I will try to live the remainder of my life without your respect, Anonymous Internet Poster but its gonna be tough.
Tom Rinaldo
(22,911 posts)I am not so foolish as to believe you need my respect. I already said it isn't worth a hill of beans in the outer world. But I've been a member of DU since 2003. Some long time members know how much I respect them, even though we often take different stances. I haven't seen much comment though so far from Clinton supporters about the substance of what I wrote though.
LonePirate
(13,407 posts)Tom Rinaldo
(22,911 posts)If so, I think you glossed over what I wrote.
pengu
(462 posts)We think your candidate is likely to start wars. Intraparty peace is irrelevant when measured against that.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)LonePirate
(13,407 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Hundreds of thousands of people have actually died in the wars she's supported. You should be ashamed for comparing that to the primary campaign. But if you had any shame you wouldn't support her in the first place.
LonePirate
(13,407 posts)It seems like some people preach peace but don't want to actualize it.
Phlem
(6,323 posts)So if Bernie voted to fund the war in Iraq, after we got into that mess, he's for the Iraq war? What's the other choice, not fund the troops, but oops, then he doesn't support the troops.
He's never voted for "pre-emptive war" which completely hypocritical term in and of itself.
This is the difference between who we are voting for.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/article/2015/sep/02/11-examples-hillary-clinton-and-bernie-sanders-hol/
gotta love the hollow morality being preached on DU.
LonePirate
(13,407 posts)Some Sanders supporters claim they want peace but they seem unwilling to practice it themselves.
Phlem
(6,323 posts)Phlem
(6,323 posts)So if I'm being abused daily and all of a sudden I resist and start resisting I'm not interested in peace and unity?
Wow.
Tarc
(10,472 posts)Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)There shouldn't be any pre-surrender. Bernie agreed to follow the rules of the Democratic Party nominating process. That's what he is doing. The result should be the result of the balance of forces on the floor of the convention, by the rules, nothing more, nothing less.
I do think however you might be overestimating how much the Hillary Clinton supporters actually care about winning us back. They don't seem to care much at all. And that attitude comes straight from the top, from the corporate lobbyists and power brokers who run the Democratic Party. Truth be told, they don't want us in their big tent. They don't want the Bernie voters because we are seen as troublemakers. They want us pushed out, marginalized, and discouraged. They want the lesson of 2016 to be that a grassroots progressive insurgency can not win. And they are already framing it as an ideological victory of neoliberalism over social democratic values like taxing the rich to pay for universal public services. Sure they are happy to have our votes as long as we don't ask for anything in return.
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)Democrat if it wasn't Bernie.
pengu
(462 posts)But Clinton? Hard pass.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)FSogol
(45,435 posts)their minority views seem like the majority view. Sanders ran a good race, but he came in second. The people of the Democratic party have selected HRC. Time to get on board and try to change our party from the inside.
Tom Rinaldo
(22,911 posts)Should I disown that as well because of it? Our nation has a radical heritage, I will not surrender it to right wingers.
Get on board? Change our Party from the inside? I will vote Democratic in the Fall and I am Chair of our Town's Democratic Committee.
Robbins
(5,066 posts)they have proven for most part to be frauds.they aren't progressive.This entire race was fixed by clintons,DNC,and dem establishment.
liberals or progressives have no place In Democratic party anymore.they sould just rename it the clinton party.
we have 2 corporate necon partys now.Time to stop pretending this isn't the case.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Death to puppies!!!
FSogol
(45,435 posts)Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)It was also transparent as fuck...and as good a reason as any to Ignore you.
Bye, Felicia...
FSogol
(45,435 posts)QC
(26,371 posts)Perhaps you were out that day in school.
(I have it on good authority that wingnuts also eat, poop, and breathe.)
MattP
(3,304 posts)Tom Rinaldo
(22,911 posts)I have no problem saying I will vote for the Democratic Presidential candidate in November. I've said that here often before, not that I had to in order to comment on the race. If you read my OP again it only challenges the argument that Sanders should be unifying the party now rather than still campaigning in California etc.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)yet that camp that is losing by delegate counts, losing by popular vote counts, have trashed the Democratic Party at every turn, trashed Hillary at every turn, thrown every Hillary supporter and endorser under the bus, villified Super Delegates, then begged for their vote, and THEN wants Hillary supporters to court them, provide extra loving and maybe even a load of butt kissing...is truly barking up the the wrong tree.
I wish you luck wherever the political winds take you.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)In its entirety.
Tom Rinaldo
(22,911 posts)I've posted a lot on GD-P, it would be easy to fact check me on that if you want.
Second, I am the Democratic Party as much as anyone is. I'm on the ballot this year as a Committeeman, I Chair our local Democratic Party Committee and we won every town wide race on 2015 (it's kind of purple in these parts).
But what I find interesting so far on this thread is not a single Hillary supporter has challenged any of my underlying argument about why it has been untimely for many to have already argued for Sanders to leave the race, especially given the choice Hillary herself made in 2008.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)And unfortunately aligning with a very vocal rude group has its disadvantages. Some of their negativity sticks like glue. Goes both ways.
There have been many many Hillary supporters that have never said one bad word about Bernie, have never personally had a negative engagement with a BS supporter. They are by nature respectful, yet those people are not part of your consideration in the OP. You already have their respect as a person, but yet you make the demand anyway because you have another agenda....there is a whole other group that you wish to vilify.
You know why you so glibly push the respectful people aside and demand respect of the group as a whole?...it's because it's natural to deal with the impressions that have provided us the bigger impact. The loudest, rudest, most popular, most obnoxious persons seem to gather way too much attention and seem to set the tone for the group.
You are trying to provide that you are different from your group and therefore deserve respect. In the most hypocritical manner, you have decided that you deserve respect based on the actions of the loud group...not those that are already respectful. For that I stand on my initial response to you.
Tom Rinaldo
(22,911 posts)I'm not sure if there is any reply that I want not make to this yet since I don't have time to give reading it the time it deserves right now. I will though later.
Tom Rinaldo
(22,911 posts)I was very specific about what I addressed, it only concerned those who have argued that Sanders should end his campaign before all of the states had voted. The strongest language I used, even in that instance, was a lack of respect.
I associate myself with those who want/wanted Bernie Sanders to be the Democratic nominee. Many millions of us have taken that position through our votes. To deduce from that that I support whatever you feel is the worst behavior displayed by any others of the millions of pro-Sanders voters is a product of your own speculation only.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Tom Rinaldo
(22,911 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Overall, they have fought for my rights as a woman, often leading the way. That goes with other oppressed groups as well.
Many aspects of this primary have sucked but I don't forget who my friends are. I have also always been able to tell a friend to fuck off and then give them the shirt off my back the next day. Many would do the same for me.
I hope you see this as sincere. I broke it down in the most simple yet serious way to try and show you that my original post was sincere.
Tom Rinaldo
(22,911 posts)We are good.
BobbyDrake
(2,542 posts)Tom Rinaldo
(22,911 posts)Trajan
(19,089 posts)Yuck ...
Gone
BobbyDrake
(2,542 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)just what we needed.
rateyes
(17,438 posts)There is nothing she could promise that would make me support her. She doesn't keep promises. A dollar and a promise from Hillary is worth a dollar.
hack89
(39,171 posts)we will move on without you and without any drama.
rateyes
(17,438 posts)to take down the establishment and replacing it with a government that is responsive to the real needs of real people.
hack89
(39,171 posts)I have seen a lot of change in my 60 years - I certainly expect to see more before I am gone.
rateyes
(17,438 posts)More than push. Many establishment Dems and Repubs need to enjoy their remaining time in office. They will be voted out soon.
Tom Rinaldo
(22,911 posts)I never said I would not help Democrats win in November even if Hillary is our nominee. I didn't even imply it. I pointed out sound reasons why Sanders should remain in the race for now and why Hillary did the same when the choice was hers. I don't respect the arguments used to try to force Bernie out now, especially while the primaries are still being fought. I don't like hypocritical stances and I bet you don't either. Hillary hasn't argued that Sanders should leave the race (it would not look good if she did) but many of her supporters have. I did not generalize beyond that or make comments against Clinton.
hack89
(39,171 posts)Bernie can certainly wait until DC votes but if he stays in after that he is in uncharted territory because that is not what Hillary did in 2008.
There will not and cannot be a contested convention. Obama, Warren and the enter senior leadership of the Democratic party will endorse Hillary within the next two weeks. Bernie will look like a fool waving his hands and yelling "what about me". And Bernie is not a fool - he will accept reality and concede like Hillary did in 2008.
Tom Rinaldo
(22,911 posts)She essentially waited for the voter all to vote. That much at least. A lot of effort has been made by some Hillary supporters here and elsewhere to argue that Sanders should already have conceded - long ago in fact,
I suppose my OP subject line came off a little too provocative for some to get much past it. Others I have used at times were too dull for people to even click on. I tried to point out some hypocrisy, but most of what I wrote tried to be thoughtful, making the case for staying in until party unity negotiations reach conclusion, and explaining why leverage mattered and how early concessions lessen it.
I expect the Convention to come together, but each cycle is different. Hillary did go on to become Secretary of State, who knows for sure what was said between the candidate camps after the California vote that may have paved the way for that. In 2008 I was a Clinton supporter who moved over to Obama after the Oregon primary when it was clear to me he would be the nominee. I was looking ahead toward party unity then, not asking Hillary to withdraw, but I got truck loads of crap from Hillary supporters at the time for "defecting". A lot of them were PUMA's who planned never to support Obama.
Like I said above, the deadline for Democratic unity is the Convention, the time between the primaries and then is a negotiating period. I expect and want party unity by then at the latest also.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)same time.
2banon
(7,321 posts)If I was in the position to appoint you ambassador, I would !
felix_numinous
(5,198 posts)---> At this point in the cycle it is not only about winning or losing, it is also about leverage.
Absolutely, because neither Clintons or Trump will represent any of us, in fact both of them have demonstrated HOSTILITY toward the left. Why on Earth would we support them, we would have to be nuts.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)But, their ugliness has nothing to do with why I can't vote for Hillary. Her actions alone are the reason I can't.
840high
(17,196 posts)upaloopa
(11,417 posts)I think everyone is so tired of being told why you will not vote for Hillary. Personally I don't care why you won't vote for Hillary.
I think you should vote against Trump though.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)Let's get together for a virtual coffee on November 9th to hash out our differences.
shireen
(8,333 posts)Thank you for stating it so eloquently.
BeyondGeography
(39,341 posts)comradebillyboy
(10,128 posts)bigtree
(85,971 posts)...thinking you're the only one with a grievance in this campaign.
Do what the hell you want. If you still refuse to join with Democrats to defeat trump. you'll be on the wrong side of history. Thinking it matters what I do or say to you in this campaign is a first class delusion.
I got news for you, the losing campaign doesn't dictate the convention. Disruptors aren't going to be given some sort of special consideration - they'll just disrupt and the party will do what it can to avoid having our nomination process derailed by sore losers who think they're entitled to more than the majority of voters in this election.
Duval
(4,280 posts)Please read his post again. Sigh!
Orsino
(37,428 posts)Does he have to fit under the same bus?
Tom Rinaldo
(22,911 posts)...but that's probably just me. Gotta run now, be back later.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)Tom Rinaldo
(22,911 posts)I never said those who endorsed Hillary lost my respect. I mentioned those who tried to force Sanders out of the race prior to the end of voting, which is something Hillary herself refused to do in 2008. That's all. Read it again.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)frazzled
(18,402 posts)On June 7, Hillary Clinton suspended her campaign and actually conceded the primary (even though the gap between their pledged delegates was far smaller--only about 100 delegates). And that day she endorsed Obama. She did not vow to fight on to the convention in order to dictate or even influence the presumptive nominee's policy stands. She didn't claim bragging rights for coming close (and she came a heck of a lot closer than Sanders has). She also didn't complain about the system being rigged.
Here is part of what she said that day:
"The way to continue our fight now, to accomplish the goals for which we stand, is to take our energy, our passion, our strength, and do all we can to help elect Barack Obama as the next president of the United States," Clinton said.
"Today, as I suspend my campaign, I congratulated him on the victory he has won. ... I endorse him and throw my full support behind him."
What I have found so odd, and distressing, over these past few months, is the presumption on Sanders's part, and by extension on the part of his supporters, that he somehow has the right to hold sway over the victor and over the convention because ... well, because he came in second in a two person race. And I can only wonder whether he has the chutzpah to put forth such an unprecedented presumption because ... well, because she is a woman and he is the man. Why would I think such a thing? First, because no one has ever done this to the winning candidate before. And second, because I can't get out of my head that time he stood at the podium and brushed his wife away, gruffly saying something to the effect of "don't stand next to me." I remain shocked about that little moment still, because as a woman, I can never in a million years imagine my husband dismissing me like that in public. And I can't get that humiliation of a woman out of my head.
I have never been one to say that Sanders should drop out before all the primaries have been conducted or until the other candidate irrefutably achieves the requisite number of delegates to win on the first round of voting at the convention. (That is what Clinton did in 2008, several days after Obama claimed victory by virtue of his pledged plus super- delegate commitments.) Let the voting go on by all means. But "taking it to the convention" and giving his supporters the false idea that this will be a contested convention is sheer hubris. And I refuse to cede my opinion on that. I don't have to respect Bernie Sanders for having lost this primary to the winner ... unless he makes this about a united party standing behind its new presumptive leader instead of a hissy fit about his own sense of entitlement and righteousness. And I honestly don't care what you think about that.
I also don't care whether you respect me. I do request that you respect the nominee of the Democratic Party ... the one the PEOPLE elected.
lmbradford
(517 posts)Really, do you not recall her terms?
As always, all about her.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)There were talks after the November election, as there are with any prospective cabinet appointment by the president elect. But there was no "deal"--because there didn't need to be. She lost the nomination. Obama had already won the presidency. He could have chosen anyone he wanted. She had ZERO leverage over him. Zero. It was his choice, and he famously talked about the value of having a "team of rivals," using Lincoln as his model. Indeed, an article from the time emphasizes his thinking:
The thread that binds these names together isnt ideology but a devotion to a kind of hard-nosed, even ruthless pragmatism. Moreover, Obamas appointments to critical posts reflect an inclination toward people with deep institutional expertise and major-league political chops, who can effectively drive or implement an agenda. ... But choosing Hillary demonstrates more than merely get-her-done, mission-driven hardheadedness. It demonstrates that Obama has finally learned the political power of magnanimityor least the perception thereof. It demonstrates strength, whereas selecting her as his running mate would have displayed the opposite (the stories would all have been about how he did it because he had no choice).
http://nymag.com/news/politics/powergrid/52428/index1.html
The idea that there were some kind of negotiation where she would play nice at the convention in return for a seat at the table is just something the OP has made up or surmised.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Clinton will clinch the nomination tomorrow.
Failing to make war against reality is not a character defect
Tom Rinaldo
(22,911 posts)...read some of the last few posts I made, especially the one near the bottom of this thread. I said nothing about Clinton not "clinching" tomorrow just to make one simple observation. I did talk about why it was important to run this campaign to it's conclusion with the last states voting however.
Seriously, it's laughable to call this particular OP nasty and insulting for GD-P
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)They (the candidate and her supporters) are mostly right wingers who don't seem to have any principles at all, at least when it comes to supporting Sanders progressive goals. Hillary has either turned her cultists into republicans, or exposed them as republicans. And then there are the ones like leser and cha and wc0 who suddenly love the candidate they detested not long ago. Either way I'm not going to help them destroy what's left of the country that the democrats built in the 20th century.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I'd allege the same as well were I irrational and could not support any statement I made...
(but we'll never admit to being irrational-- and if anyone asks us for objective evidence to support our allegations, we'll just tell them "I'm not doing your homework for you!" because that's irrational as well, and we value the hobgoblin of consistency....)
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, and Honduras. There is a certain mental deficiency among many in Hillary's cult that I won't be a part of.
Response to Tom Rinaldo (Original post)
artislife This message was self-deleted by its author.
MineralMan
(146,248 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Thus making your snark redundant to the self deprecating language the author included. Most of the comments bashing the OP actually do not seem to have read it at all. That's always sad to see.
Tom Rinaldo
(22,911 posts)Thank you for caring. I don't remember if you have pushed for Sanders to exit the race early, but even with those who I feel did, I know it gets heated around here. A relatively short period of shared common purpose and sanity around here will do a lot to restore the respect that has been lost among many of us of late.
MFM008
(19,803 posts)Think about your choices and act.
Joe Nation
(962 posts)You'll have to learn to recognize respect first.
RandySF
(58,454 posts)But there's nothing for Us to concede after the behavior we all witnessed from the Sanders movement.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Ronald Reagan, which went on a Media and DU blitz with 'That's not Bernie in those photos' lies, claimed 'chairs and bottles were thrown' when no such thing happened.
Born into this Party and the Clinton campaign has been the most disappointing in verbiage and in conduct of my lifetime. Ronald Reagan? Obviously Hillary's end of the Party is not well informed and has very little in common with people like me. It's sad news, but it's a fact.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)WiffenPoof
(2,404 posts)Thanks for posting Tom.
Tom Rinaldo
(22,911 posts)So many take off in odd directions. Here are some of the things this OP did NOT do:
It did not say one negative word about Hillary Clinton
It did not say screw party unity.
It did not threaten to withhold a vote from the Democratic nominee if it isn't the person I supported.
It did not say anything negative about the choice many have made to support Hillary Clinton for President.
It did not claim, barring any very damning and dramatic new developments, that Hillary Clinton might not win the Democratic nomination for President.
It did not make any negative characterizations about Hillary supporters in general.
I find it pretty interesting that so many of the replies to what I originally wrote either assume or out right say that I made one or more of the above statements (which I did not). Here is what I did say
I made the outrageous attack of threatening to withhold my personal respect for a time to those who tried to force Bernie out of this race prematurely, while simultaneously professing support for a candidate who also refused to bow out of the race until all of the voters had voted, despite the then certainty of "the Math" the last time she ran for President.
I pointedly did not claim that my personal respect held any great importance, political or otherwise
I pointed out that there is more than one reason to stay in the race until all the voters get their say.
I pointed out that traditionally "party unity" is measured by what goes on at the Democratic National Convention, not by the give and take preceding it.
I said I prayed for party unity by the close of the convention if not before then
And I pointed out the obvious, that politics is politics and that there is always some horse trading involved in assembling a formidable coalition behind any winning candidate.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)If you refuse to vote for the Democratic nominee in Nov, then you're a Trumpist.
Tom Rinaldo
(22,911 posts)If you had you would know why your comment is so far off base.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)about 25% of Sanders supporters won't stand for the winner take all mentality being pushed by somewhat similar fraction of Clinton supporters.
LaydeeBug
(10,291 posts)we will fight this with or without you.
Earn a spot with us, since you clearly think the opposite is true. (which is hilarious)
Tom Rinaldo
(22,911 posts)LaydeeBug
(10,291 posts)Tom Rinaldo
(22,911 posts)LaydeeBug
(10,291 posts)Tom Rinaldo
(22,911 posts)Does away with all those nasty details and nuances. (no I'm not claiming that is your philosophy - just pointing out how twitter like discourse naturally devolves)
LaydeeBug
(10,291 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Tom Rinaldo
(22,911 posts)addressed only to those who literally wanted Bernie out of this race before all the voters had voted, while simultaneously professing support for a candidate who also refused to bow out of the race until all of the voters had voted in 2008, despite the certainty of "the Math" that time also.
I don't and never did have a problem with anyone simply supporting Hillary, or with anyone who believed that a Clinton win was inevitable, or with anyone preaching the need for Democrats to unite behind a nominee to defeat Trump in the Fall.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)BUT.... The numbers weren't even close to being the same in '08 and they are in 2016.
I didn't read your post so I do not know what you were specifically talking about, but I do not owe you earning your respect. So the title is what was bothering me.
Anyway, thank you for clarifying even though I did not put the time into reading your post.
It is all good.