2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumNBC News: "In '08, Sanders Endorsed Obama - Before Clinton Formally Exited Race"
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/08-sanders-endorsed-obama-clinton-formally-exited-race-n586556As Bernie Sanders and his supporters argue that Hillary Clinton can't clinch the Democratic nomination on Tuesday - because superdelegates don't count until the convention - it is worth noting that Sanders endorsed Barack Obama two days after Obama crossed the magic number (pledged + superdelegate), saying he had become Democratic nominee.
And Sanders' endorsement of Obama came before Clinton had officially exited the 2008 presidential race.
"I plan to play a very active role," Sanders said of endorsing Obama, according to an interview in the June 5, 2008 Burlington Free Press. "I will do everything I can to see that he is elected president."
But the newspaper added, "Sanders said he held off supporting either of the Democrats [Obama or Clinton] because he has made it a custom not to support any Democrat for the presidential nomination until the party had chosen its nominee."
Obama clinched the Democratic nomination on June 3, 2008.
Clinton did not formally end her presidential campaign until June 7, 2008.
________________________
So, what is different between 2008 and 2016?
tonyt53
(5,737 posts)There is no difference.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)The spinning is amazing.
"Can you say 'Catch 22' Boys and Girls?"
Unless I'm mistaken, Sanders is not fighting to prevent people from being able to endorse whatever candidate they choose at whatever time they choose.
CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)So whom and when he endorses is irrelevent to now.
CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)And as such could endorse a year before, if he chose.
CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)In 08 pledged + super delegates was enough for him to declare Obama the winner. It's fittingly be for him to claim those same rules don't apply when he's in the race.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)He believes one thing when he's not a candidate and he believes something different when he is. That's not being ethical and consistent.
CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)TimPlo
(443 posts)Did anyone tell Sanders that all he has to do is endorse himself now and he wins just like 08 where " him to declare Obama the winner." You people and spin are silly, do realize how stupid you look saying he should be endorsing Clinton now even though he is on a ballot tomorrow where people are voting? And you all wonder why people say that her supporters think it is owed to her from the start.
CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)Right now, the arguments he's making show him to be a self-serving, lying hypocrite who will say whatever gets him what he wants. He won't even follow his own standards.
TimPlo
(443 posts)It kinda delusional to think that posting her on DU is going to be read by Sanders. Any way nice projection you have.
CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)If you atre not implying that Sanders was wrong for doing that, I stand corrected about your post and apologize for my hyperbole.
But if you are implying that Sanders is being a hypocrite for fighting as long as he has a chance, I standby what I said. The timing of his endorsement in 2008 is irrelevant to today. He is not trying to stop anyone from endorsing whomever they choose at whatever time they choose. That's a false equivalence.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Hypocrisy, we are all hypocritical in our own way.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)TimPlo
(443 posts)Even though 08 Clinton waited till she was sure the SD where not going to switch back to her and give the nomination to her?
okasha
(11,573 posts)Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)In 2008, he held off on endorsing until the nominee was decided. There's nothing wrong with that, lots of prominent figures prefer not to influence the primary outcome and instead wait to endorse the winner. But by the standards Sanders is operating under this year ("superdelegates don't count until the convention" , Obama wasn't actually the winner yet when Sanders endorsed him as being the winner. Either announced superdelegate backing counts before the convention or it doesn't. It can't only count sometimes and not other times.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)beachbumbob
(9,263 posts)And his hardcore supporters....sanders support the black guy but turns on the woman???
Armstead
(47,803 posts)This is getting ridiculous.
beachbumbob
(9,263 posts)That is the issue
Armstead
(47,803 posts)He endorsed Obama at the time he thought was appropriate.
He is not saying now that no one has the right to endorse anyone at the time they think is appropriate.
Big difference between circumstances and his role in 2008, and fighting as hard as he can in 2016.
beachbumbob
(9,263 posts)Don't embarrass yourself any further
Armstead
(47,803 posts)he might endorse Clinton on Wednesday...or he might not.
Either way it has nothing to do with what he chose to do with his endorsement as a non-candidate in 2008.
CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)Eight years ago, he said when Obama hit the number with both pledged delegates AND SUPERDELEGATES that we "have picked our nominee". Now, when Hillary does the exact same thing, she says we won't have picked our nominee until the convention.
That is as blatant as hypocrisy gets.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)You are just obsessing
Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)In 2016 Bernie says that superdelegates don't count until the convention and thus Hillary can't be the presumptive nominee unless she gets a majority of all delegates using pledged delegates alone. But in 08 he considered Obama the presumptive nominee after he reached a majority with the help of superdelegates. That you claim this isn't a change in metrics on Bernie's part is absurd.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)beachbumbob
(9,263 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)Higher standards and all that.
beachbumbob
(9,263 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)In 08 he said that the Democratic Party had selected its nominee even though superdelegates were needed to reach a majority. Now he's saying that superdelegates can't be counted until the convention. The only difference is that this time it's him rather than Hillary who's the 2nd place finisher.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)until they vote at the convention. The same was true in 2008. He, as a super delegate, made his intention public when the state contests had ended.
onenote
(42,374 posts)Back then, he accepted that the party had chosen its nominee long before the convention based on Obama having a combination of pledged delegates and super delegate commitments sufficient to claim the nomination. Now he says that having a combination of pledged delegates and super delegate commitments sufficient to claim the nomination isn't good enough until the convention votes.
Can't reconcile those two views no mater how hard you try.
bigbrother05
(5,995 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)puffy socks
(1,473 posts)nomination from the party he's dissed for years.
thesquanderer
(11,954 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)thesquanderer
(11,954 posts)That hasn't happened yet this year. It won't be until DC votes.
George II
(67,782 posts)...how about his statements that he'll "contest" the convention? That will be many weeks after the DC primary.
thesquanderer
(11,954 posts)tonyt53
(5,737 posts)thesquanderer
(11,954 posts)Nor, for that matter, was one of the candidates the subject of an FBI investigation.
So it is not the exact same circumstance.
beachbumbob
(9,263 posts)Until the convention and the fact is....they don't count because it's Hillary but they did count because Obama...a black guy
AzDar
(14,023 posts)tonyt53
(5,737 posts)Beacool
(30,244 posts)It's worth noting that Obama ended the primaries with only a 102 pledged delegate advantage. The popular vote was also quite close. Hillary's delegate advantage is almost triple that of Obama's and she's far ahead in the popular vote.
Herman4747
(1,825 posts)Hillary runs from that word:
ismnotwasm
(41,921 posts)Silly videos notwithstanding
Herman4747
(1,825 posts)...I suspect that the gentleman below would agree with you:
realmirage
(2,117 posts)I'll choose reality every time
Herman4747
(1,825 posts)azurnoir
(45,850 posts)ismnotwasm
(41,921 posts)onehandle
(51,122 posts)My guess is that he wanted to endorse her months ago.
ismnotwasm
(41,921 posts)aikoaiko
(34,127 posts)And people are free to endorse HRC if they want. Bernie is not stopping that.
So not much is different except that Bernie isn't in debt up to his eyes like HRC was in 2008 and can continue campaigning.
George II
(67,782 posts)...Sanders didn't qualify his 2008 endorsement with "I support Obama because Clinton is broke". Why even bring that into the discussion?
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)aikoaiko
(34,127 posts)But fair enough, HRC isn't demanding that Bernie drop out, but her surrogates and supporters are.
George II
(67,782 posts)aikoaiko
(34,127 posts)Bernie was merely endorsing a candidate in 2008 and in 2016 he is a candidate with responsibilities to his agenda and supporters.
George II
(67,782 posts)Essentially saying that Obama was the Democratic nominee at that time.
aikoaiko
(34,127 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Smarmie Doofus
(14,498 posts)Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)Obama may not be perfect but he has bucket loads of integrity over Hillary too.
sheshe2
(83,337 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)He has not been fighting to prevent anyone from endorsing whomever they choose at any time.
onenote
(42,374 posts)In 2008, Sanders expressly acknowledged that the party had chosen Obama as its nominee before the convention, before Clinton suspended, and even though Obama did not have a super majority of pledged delegates but needed a combination of pledged delegates and super delegate commitments to reach the nomination threshold.
Now he says it wrong to consider someone in that circumstance to be the nominee before the convention.
Cary
(11,746 posts)So the real question is what is trying to do? And then the question is what will Democrats give him?
No amount of debate here at DU will matter but this is great info. Personally I'm not sure what I think should happen to Sanders but stuff like this is making me dislike him as much as I am disliking his supporters.
brer cat
(24,401 posts)Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)brer cat
(24,401 posts)would do exactly that! The cat I have now stands on my laptop to get in my face and tell me that I need to pay more attention to him. Whatever...cats will not be ignored!
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)or hypocricy...depending on one's current level of disgust with the Bernie camp at this moment in time.
DesertRat
(27,995 posts)Thanks for posting.
UtahLib
(3,179 posts)realmirage
(2,117 posts)Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)highprincipleswork
(3,111 posts)is clearly shown by the superdelegates, most of whom endorsed before they even knew who was running!!!
That is more clearly an absurd proposition, and a rigged one. Furthermore, they can change their minds right up to the last minute, which is why we can't count them until July 25th.
Sanders is now a candidate in his own right. He is fighting for what is right and good for the Democratic Party and for the country, and we who support him want him to continue right up to the convention, as long as he possibly can. Heck, the other candidate has already been shown to violate important federal guidelines in the performance of her job as Secretary of State. Pro-Hillary newscasters like Chuck Todd have been led to wonder if she could even be confirmed now as Attorney General, others have wondered if she could get security clearance. And in the midst of this kind of scandal you would like Bernie to drop out?
Not likely and not proper.
And he surely can't endorse her if he's not dropping out.
Im subscribing to none of your bad logic on this one. In fact, the more I hear b.s. like this, the more I'm encouraging Bernie to stay in.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Now it appears he has a problem with that same concept.
highprincipleswork
(3,111 posts)That would really be good for the planet, and a feat beyond believing.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)He is a political like any other, after all. I hope he helps us get more down ticket Dems elected.
highprincipleswork
(3,111 posts)highprincipleswork
(3,111 posts)concentrate on what really counts.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)Isn't that what some parents say to children....?
NastyRiffraff
(12,448 posts)Posting something verifiable and true. Shame on you!
BooScout
(10,406 posts)William769
(55,124 posts)Sancho
(9,065 posts)and this whole "super delegate" crap is just so he can milk more money from the masses.
George II
(67,782 posts)...to be hidden or swept under the rug.
Now it's out there, and most likely will be talked about over and over again the next few days.
merrily
(45,251 posts)not a nomination.
Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)Either they do or they don't, you can't have it both ways.
merrily
(45,251 posts)And my reply was, in essence, that it's irrelevant because the situations are not the same
I have no idea how you concluded my post was about when to count super delegates.
Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)Bernie thought they counted before the convention in 2008. He endorsed Obama because Obama was the nominee, specifically saying that he only endorses after the nominee is decided. But Obama was only the presumptive nominee because of superdelegates, so obviously in 08 Sanders thought it made sense to count supers before they officially vote at the convention.
But now in 2016 Bernie insists that supers absolutely must not be counted prior to the convention vote. The only difference is that he's a candidate this year and wasn't in 08, which makes this shift in position totally self-serving as well as hypocritical.
merrily
(45,251 posts)That was the point of Reply 79.
MariaThinks
(2,495 posts)he could have been a good symbol of purity - fighting the good fight and refusing to corrupt a system for a means to an end.
He seems to have trouble keeping his own principles intact.
It is totally unacceptable to say:
1. superdelegates should not corrupt democracy and then to turn around and ask them to do just that by voting against the candidate with the most pledged delegates
2. saying someone else was a Democratic nominee before the convention where the votes are counted, but saying it doesn't apply to Hillary in this case.
this is so disappointing.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Not sure what the point of this is.
mythology
(9,527 posts)There are still contests left to go. The race in 2008 was over before the final contests but Sanders didn't endorse until after they were done. We're not there yet. Especially as a candidate nobody says they are dropping out before they do. Clinton was talking about the convention in 2008, but then conceded after the final primaries (and a couple of days to let it sink in). I predict Sanders will do the same.
Running for president requires a certain amount of ego and the process is so all-consuming that it's got to be hard accepting losing.
If a week or more after the DC primary he's still talking about turning super delegates, then he'd be a hypocrite.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)....when the truth and reality are almost always something else.
mcar
(42,210 posts)UMTerp01
(1,048 posts)My view of Sanders will be what he does after tomorrow night. Does he continue to fight this all the way to the convention or does he suspend and accept Hillary as the nominee and work for unity with Hillary and co?
George II
(67,782 posts)Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)That didn't happen until the final day of voting. But this time it will happen a week before the final day of voting.
UMTerp01
(1,048 posts)Cha
(295,907 posts)beachbumbob
(9,263 posts)democrattotheend
(11,605 posts)Either way, I don't think he has ever said that elected officials should not endorse candidates in the primary. What he is saying is that the superdelegates have not voted yet, and that many of them endorsed Hillary before he even declared his candidacy. That is very different from endorsing after the last primary.
George II
(67,782 posts)"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."
Gothmog
(143,999 posts)lunamagica
(9,967 posts)Sanders are now in PDs, But I really expect this from Sanders.
Response to George II (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
BreakfastClub
(765 posts)Response to BreakfastClub (Reply #125)
Name removed Message auto-removed
George II
(67,782 posts)slipslidingaway
(21,210 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)....180 degrees from what he's saying this year.
yardwork
(61,417 posts)It's difficult to lose a hard-fought campaign. Sanders has done well - better than most predicted - and that makes it even more difficult to concede.