I have a theory on why Sanders is not conceding or endorsing at this poinjt

[Armstead]

This discussion thread was locked by EarlG (a host of the 2016 Postmortem forum).

This is just a theory of mine, as to why he isn't going through the Kabuki Dance of endorsing Clinton now, and folding his campaign before the convention.

If he keeps his campaign going -- although not on an active basis against Clinton -- and does not release his delegates, there will be a floor vote between the two of them.

He will lose.

But if his pledged delegates vote for him, at least it will show a level of support for his message and policies that can't be swept under the rug. It is a form of leverage symbolically for the positions and reforms he is advocating for.

It will show that it is not "fringe" and that a significant number of Democrats support the reforms and policies he is pushing for. It will counter the usual habit of assuming that the nomination of Clinton means she and the DLC/Centrists own the party lock, stock and barrel.

Once the first ballot is over, the party can still move on to placing the Crown on Clinton's head. And Sanders can endorse the Democratic nominee and actively campaign to elect Democrats and beat Trump -- but also still keep his issues alive for the future, and make sure the people who have supported himand his Reform Message are not brushed off once again. .

Just a theory, but makes sense to me. Not as neat and tidy as it would be if Sanders were to kiss her ring before the convention. But we don't need neat and tidy at this point..

[Faux pas]

1. I thought he's

staying in because he said he would. A man of his word.

[Armstead]

2. That too....But I'm looking at the political calculations involved.

[Tortmaster]

134. Have you ever seen a political convention?

That's what they always do. They get the count of delegates for each candidate from each state. They go in alphabetical order, and while they do so, they tally up the count. Doesn't matter when the candidate quit. That's why they're called "pledged" delegates.

[redstateblues]

4. Except when he said he wouldn't run a negative campaign

[Armstead]

7. Oh stop that crap...He did not run a "negative" campaign anymore than Clinton did

He held back a whole lot.....Sure he said a few things in the heat of the moment that he shouldn't have. But all politicians do that -- including Clinton.

Overall his kept the focus on ISSUES, and he did not go near some of the skeletons in the Clinton closet that he could have if he were really running a negative campaign.

[redstateblues]

63. Calling her unqualified is not negative?

Bernie went negative before the NY primary and it probably cost him any chance of winning. It's amazing how Hillary hatred blinds some BSS to Bernie's flaws. I will admit HRC is not a perfect candidate but in the cult of Bernie he is the perfect one. Any mention of any weakness is met with "o stop that crap" or something equally dismissive.

[lancer78]

99. Calling one unqualified

is NOT negative. It is simply stating ones opinion (which I agree with, the IWR showed a HUGE lack of judgement on Clinton's part). Being negative would be bringing up Bill's Scandals, Vince Foster, and Benghazi.

[redstateblues]

107. Like I said: Bernie is perfect. Mr Positivity. LOL

[840high]

126. and much more

[BlueStateLib]

117. character assassination, questioning her judgment and calling her unqualified

is not going negative.

[Armstead]

123. If you are that delicate then I suggest you run away and hide for the next five months

Sanders did not engage in the things you describe. But if you interpreted his disagreements on issues as negative, then you do not have a clue as to what real negative campaigning is.

[randome]

3. "Kiss her ring". Jesus Christ.

This is why Sanders will go the way of OWS: he will succeed in making changes on the margins but nothing more.

Elizabeth Warren is way smarter than Sanders. At least she knows how to talk with people instead of at them.

[Armstead]

5. And if Sanders just folds now, his issues disappear totally

Yes, I used kiss her ring deliberately.

People are pushing for some illusory form of "unity" that implies that everyone loves Clinton, and wants to keep things just as they are forever in the Democratic Party -- no change, no reform, no movement to actually open up the political process to new input and participants.

They would just as soon keep "the left" as their marginal pets who are locked in the Democratic Cage because they have nowhere else to go.

I think OWS was too flaky in many ways -- but they did make an important contribution to bringing out previously ignored issues.

Sanders is more of a politician, and this could be his political strategy. To actually channel that movement into the system.

Warren is in a totally different position than Sanders. She did not take the risk, and she's in a safer place where she can have cake and eat it too. I have mixed feelings about that -- but it can't be compared to the role Sanders has.

[randome]

69. Who says he needs to fold? I LIKE his ideas! Most of us do!

But now he's gambling with getting his ideas taken seriously. He still, after 25 years in Congress, hasn't learned how to work as part of a team. That's how things get done. They don't get done by letting a johnny-come-lately preacher man try to harangue his allies.

OWS reached for the sky and look what happened to it. They made changes at the margins instead of transforming the country.

That's why I have more respect for Elizabeth Warren than Sanders. As someone else on DU said, Sanders is the wrong guy with the right message.

[Armstead]

79. No he's the right guy....It requires a fighte,r whether one likes him personally or not

[Jakes Progress]

160. You are wrong.

It does not require a fighter. It requires someone who knows how to make things happen. His ideas are fine. He has no plans or skills that will make them happen. When all you can do is fight and yell at the other side, you have to have a super majority. You have to know when to give, when to take, how to get support from those who don't like you, and how to move things along. It would be great if we could just close our eyes and have the magic man poof things the way we want. Change doesn't happen that way. Never has in American political history.

(Oh. And you have to get elected in the first place.)

[Armstead]

162. Just to correct the record -- He has excellent skills to get things done

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/10/31/socialist-even-conservative-could-love-burlington-mayor-sanders-was-able-out-republican-republicans/SCmh2TLifXxXRPFKC8NMjO/story.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-dreier/bernies-burlington-what-k_b_7510704.html

[Jakes Progress]

170. Sounds like thirty years ago he might have been a good mayor

of a small New England town. Good for him.

Have you got something to show me from his twenty six years in Congress?

See. Being mayor is different. It doesn't require working with people from across the country and around the world. I imagine you will take this as a shot at Bernie, but I really mean it as a good thing. Maybe mayor is what he needs to be. Sort of reminds me of the Peter Principle. Being a really good major is a good thing. Being a mediocre congressman - not so much.

Like I have said before, if Sanders had won the nomination, I would be out canvassing for him now. He didn't.

I just think that Hillary will get more progressive things done than any republican. Bernie would never be elected, and would be even more overwhelmed than Obama was at first. Yelling doesn't get it done.

Would I wish we had a more progressive candidate who actually had experience making government work - Hells yes. Love me some Elizabeth Warren. Like Barney Frank and Al Franken. Didn't get them. Got Hillary and Bernie.

In my more tin foil hat moments, I feel that getting only these two was a set up. Like Obama running against mccain/palin. The fix was in.

But putting trump (or ryan whom I think will be the real gop candidate after the convention) in office would be worse than ever. If we can put a big enough Democratic majority in the Congress and in the State Houses, we can start primarying the blue dogs with real progressives. But that takes a big Democratic win - a truly embarrassing loss for the merchants of death and pain. A crowd of Democrats sitting home sulking on election day won't help that happen.

[tex-wyo-dem]

128. His ideas getting taken seriously...

And not shoved into a closet is exactly why he is engaging in this strategy.

Btw...OWS did not just make changes on the margin. It changed the conversation in this countey and much of the world forever more. I'm convinced that if OWS had not happened, the conversation about the have and have nots, the huge income disparity in this country would still be viewed as a fringe concern. Now it is a major issue.

[glennward]

82. Why will his issues disappear? They are not his issues alone.Dems have been speaking to these issues

for a long time. Think Social Security, Medicare, Student National Defense Loans were not speaking to these issues in their time? Minimum wage increases have always been a Dem issue and adjusted for time and income base, previously sought increases equaled the $15 increase Sanders supports. Voting rights and civil rights raised the issues of justice and fairness long before Sanders was on the scene. Why would anyone believe that these issues would never be raised if Bernie was not in the picture?

[Armstead]

84. Democrats have been ignoring these issues for a long time

The GOP is not all powerful, and they have not been the only party with a megaphone.

But the Democrats act like that's the case.

If the Democratic Party had exposed the concentration of wealth and power, and actively a basic agenda of fighting it and redistributing political power back to the people , the country would not be in the mess it is today.

They should have been exposing the real GOP Corporate Conservative agenda since the 90's (at least) and actively fighting it.

Instead the Democrats either supported it (Bill Clinton and many Congress critters) and or failed to articulate a clear a liberal alternative. Instead they parroted the GOP too often on those issues.

[Armstead]

122. Democrats over the last 30 years have given up on the approach you describe

They are not Bernie's issues alone. But he finally brought those issues out. Most Democrats have avoided dealing them head on...and scarcely mentioned them.

They have allowed obscene concentration of wealth and power to occur. Mainstream Democrats have not even addressed that issue expect in vague terms when events forced in after 2008 --and since then, they still condone shit like TPP and other corporate friendly policies.

And if Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid did not currentlty exist, the Democratic Party would not even coinsider them. They'd be laughed off as ponies.....Or they might start a mandatory privatge investment funt, inwhich all citizens would be requirted to set up an account with Goldman Sachs.

[Lord Magus]

119. That's exactly your problem, you think of them as "his" issues.

As if Bernie is the owner of progressive politics.

[Armstead]

121. No but he is representing issues that the Democratic power structure has marginalized

It's not about Sanders. He is representing the views that millions have had, but which the De,ocratic Party has failed to address in any meaningful way.

[Lord Magus]

125. No, he really isn't.

The issues that Bernie campaigned on were in no way "marginalized" prior to his candidacy.

[Ken Burch]

131. Not his alone...but this year in Democratic politics only Bernie's campaign raised most of them.

HRC's basic argument was that it was change enough to have a female president...as if a female establishmentarian would see or do ANYTHING differently than a male establishmentarian simply due to the difference in gender.

[Lord Magus]

132. Nice strawman you've got there.

That's not remotely resembling anything Hillary has said, ever.

[tk2kewl]

8. you don't fight fire with smaller fires

you fight it with water

it's time to stand up against the rightward slide of the democratic party with real progressive principles

[randome]

68. Actually, your analogy is mistaken. Fire breaks are smaller fires to contain a raging one.

But I get your point. Still, all or nothing usually ends up with nothing. There is nothing wrong with dreaming for the sky but we still can't fly, can we? And as long as Americans continue to send lazy GOPers to Congress, we have to live with that.

[tk2kewl]

70. a fire break contains a fire while it consumes all available fuel

Akin to starting negotiations on you opponents turf like Obama's "Grand Bargain."

Demand what's right and settle for what's good - don't start with sacrificing what's good to end up with something better than worst.

[Armstead]

77. Its a process -- Step one was demonstrating that there is a significant desire for change...

Step two is hammering that through thick skulls that want to revert based on the phony veneer of "unity."

No one is stopping Clinton and others from aggressively going after Trump. That's a red herring. And oince this stuff is out of the way, Sanders will be among them (he already is, but owuld be in a much bigger way).

So chillax about it for now.

If Sanders says at some point -- Do not vote for Clinton in the General Election, you might have cause to complain.

[NurseJackie]

73. That's a theme with this particular poster.

What's funny about it is the this poster will often not hesitate to scold and reprimand others for being "disrespectful" of Bernie, or bemoaning that Bernie's being belittled and ridiculed, and chastising Hillary supporters for not seeking unity.

Weird, huh?

[Armstead]

85. That particular poster gives respect to those who express themselves reasonably....

...but gives snark in response to snark.

[NurseJackie]

116. Respect?

[That Guy 888]

133. "talk with people instead of at them"

Someone should teach Presumptive that. It would work better than saying "If you don't vote for me you're voting for trump".

[Baitball Blogger]

6. I'm okay with that.

I don't understand the vitriol from the Clinton supporters. If they are so sure their candidate is going to win, why keep attacking Bernie? It shows that they are insecure about this outcome.

Bernie ran the most honest race we have seen in years. He deserves to end it the way he wants to.

[bettyellen]

40. Not insecure about her winning, but fear some ugly invectives hurled at her by "Progressives" as

We saw in Nevada. No one wants to work with assholes who holler "bi@ch and c&nt at any woman- especially not our next president and champion of women's rights. I'm done with the ugliness.

[Baitball Blogger]

46. That doesn't explain the attacks on Bernie.

At some level Clinton supporters have to know that they aren't going to win everyone over. But they also have to be smart enough not to alienate those who will vote for her, albeit reluctantly.

So, to the Clinton supporters the end game should be, take the high road and let it go. Do not add fuel to the fire. You have nothing to gain by the ugliness that you bring to the table. The more you push to marginalize people, the harder they will fight back and that won't help bring this dysfunctional little Party together. So, I suggest you all hold your breath, atleast, during the General Election. You can all gloat all you want, afterwards.

[arcane1]

76. Bernie continues to promote progressive views, which makes her look bad.

Hence the vitriol.

[Maru Kitteh]

89. Wow. The pictures in that coloring book are suitable for ages 8 and under.

[arcane1]

101. Kind of like the reading level of your nonsense post.

Thank you for proving my point.

[Maru Kitteh]

102. You had no point. You had broad-brush, intellectually lazy

clap-trap.

[arcane1]

103. Unlike the well-reasoned posts you put up in response?

With cartoon pictures in your sig line, as substitutes for actual words and meaning?

Proving my point yet again.

[appalachiablue]

124. +10

[840high]

127. 'aye

[Hortensis]

9. Seems reasonable to me. 1800+ people

is a presence.

Btw, he always promised he'd stay to the end. I don't see why all the fussing by unexpectedly sore winners. Let him. He lost. Any negatives he whomps up will be at least partially offset by greater interest in the Democratic Convention and what we all have to tell the nation there.

Btw, I have trouble believing all the people who keep going on about "queens," "coronations," "kissing rings" truly respect democracy. This doesn't just insult the people's choice, it belittles the people's right to choose. We have dozens who speak this way here, constantly eager to assume corruption as a facile excuse to overset the vote, to rubber-stamp previous promises by their own candidate to steal the election away from the voters -- people who seem to care far more about winning than about the perpetuation of a system that has secured a nation so stable and free and so taken for granted that they cannot respect it, much less fear losing it.

[Armstead]

11. Usually I'd not use those royal terms. But hypothetically....

If Jeb Bush had not screwed the pooch and if he had become the nominee...I feel fairly certain that here in DU it would be acceptable to refer to him as the latest in the Bush Line of Succession and the analogies to royal courts (and worse, like the Bush Crime Family) would be perfectly acceptable on DU.

Remember that GW Bush was often referred to as The Dauphin here, and no one thought anything of the term.

There are similarities in having one family and their backers in the WH for more then two terms.

Also.....

In the context of now -- what Sanders, and I and many supporters are afraid of is that the nomination of Clinton could mean that once again the same Inner Circle will run things unchallenged, and that it will be portrayed as "everyone but a small fringe left" accept and agree with everything they do.

Close to half the voters have a different perspective....AND a lot of people who voted for Clinton actually also agree with and prefer much of Sanders message and critiques and goals.

Further here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512201394#post5

[Hortensis]

17. Don't know where it came from,

but even at 9 and 10 I was offended by happy references to "Camelot" and "America's royal family." Unfortunately we do have real family dynasties with "traditions of public service," (vomit!) but it takes more than one or even two single-service generations to be one. The Bushes are a real one, very powerful, but at least "dauphin" was used as a term of contempt and rejection, not respect and admiration.

I very much even dislike the term "czar" to describe heads of large federal institutions. It implies being overly powerful and above the control of the people, but no accident that it came from conservatives determined to destroy those institutions. Using it degrades the whole idea of a department of education or ERA and thus helps their enemies destroy them.

Your use of these royalty allusions really is pretty mild and I know it just comes from the pervasiveness of those terms, but just look at the worst of the people talking that way. Some are literally hatemongers, some are conservative trolls or operators, while others are conspiracists eagerly casting off whatever rationality once anchored them to political reality. Imo, just not something to encourage.

[Armstead]

33. I'd use the term "oligarchy" but that too is frowned on

[Hortensis]

48. Oh? Hadn't noticed. Well, if one's describing

a country or society governed by the wealthy, in our case, mostly conservative billionaires and megamillionaires, I suppose plutocracy's the more accurate term.

I use oligarchy sometimes, I admit, but its lack of specificity does cause it to be flung around a lot as an insult. Thank goodness it wasn't used when I was in the PTA, or the year I was the bake sale "czar" I'd have heard mutterings about the oligarchs insisting on selling cookies again instead of cakes for a change like everyone wants. (Not! And anyway, cookies were significantly more profitable and held up better.)

[Armstead]

51. Oligarchs, unfortunately, don't much care about cookies

And like many words and labels, it is shorthand to describe complex systems and relationships and behaviors.

So either oligarchs or plutocrats as descriptive terms can seem trite over time. ......But that doesn't negate the importance of the concepts the terms represent. Its the cumulative patterns and specific results that are important.

[Hortensis]

54. True. But if they're to be taken seriously,

it would help if they weren't flung around like mudballs. Serial huge-scale criminal and "depraved indifference" killer Charles Koch and favorite-hate-magnet-of-the-moment Debbie W-S should not be described by the same term.

[Armstead]

59. This has been the first time "oligarch" has been referred to in mainstream politics...

the concept of inappropriate concentration of wealth and power has been studiously ignored by most politicians (and and R) and the mainstream media until very recently.

IMO there are two competing branches of the oligarchy, Dems and GOP. Despite the superficial differences, they are both linked to and part of the same deeper apolitical oligarchy of Corporations, Wall St. and the elites who control them. They don't much care about "social issues" that are the only real separation of the power strictures of both parties these days.


BTW, as libertarians, the Kochs are personally more aligned with liberals on many social issues and nice endowments and charities, even though they support the GOP for their business and ideological economic agenda.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/koch-brother-im-social-liberal

David Koch, billionaire donor to conservative causes, claimed once again that he is a “social liberal.” His own political contributions suggest otherwise.

“I’m basically a libertarian, and I’m a conservative on economic matters, and I’m a social liberal,” Koch said in a forthcoming interview with Barbara Walters that was previewed on “This Week” Sunday.

But he conceded that views on abortion and marriage equality doesn’t actually dictate his political activism or choice of candidates. “What I want these candidates to do is to support a balanced budget,” he said. “I’m very worried that if the budget is not balanced that inflation could occur and the economy of our country could suffer terribly.”

[Hortensis]

67. Well, we can certainly agree that the

incredible aggregation of wealth into a few hands and the lavish showering of it around our power centers, above all DC, has resulted in the inevitable widespread corruption.

However, just as using one term to describe both Koch and Schultz is wildly inaccurate, I believe pretending both political parties are equally corrupt is equally mistaken. One is completely beyond the pale and is not only very actively and deliberately involved in the transfer of wealth and power away from the working classes but has incorporated this as a virtue and a duty into its conservative ideology.

The other party is...only partially subverted. That's because these goals are antithetical to liberalism itself. We not only have always had representatives actively fighting it in spite of all attempts to buy or drive them from office, but we have many more who would join in if they thought it wouldn't cost them seats they value far too highly. Not the highest integrity, but at least they know it's wrong and many want to be part of something better. Because it's in their nature.

It is important to realize this because if we were to destroy or disable both parties we really would be up mud creek. One guess who's eager to sweep in to save America from chaos and restore government "of the people?"

[emulatorloo]

10. Pretty good theory.

I agree for the most part, and also beleive he's gently preparing some of his more binary thinking supporters for his endorsement.

That being said, "Crown" and "Ring" rhetoric isn't particularly helpful now to Bernie's strategy and goals here.

Nor are the Bernie bashing posts I see out there helpful either.

[Armstead]

14. In response....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512201394#post11

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512201394#post5

[CrowCityDem]

12. He'll cost himself a primetime speaking slot for symbolism? Wouldn't the speech be more effective?

[Armstead]

13. It would look (and be) petty to deny him a speaking slot on that basis, and .....

....The demonstration of a significant number of delegates voting for his message and goals would more than make up for that.

[CrowCityDem]

15. It's petty not to concede obvious defeat. I agree with Rendell. Active candidates don't speak.

[Armstead]

16. If Bernie concedes and endorses her after the vote but during the convention?

Only dif with Clinton making the speech would be the timing.

Democrats would be absolutely stupid not to let him speak on that basis, and make a public concession and endorsement and urge his supporters to vote for Clinton. (And if my theory is correct, I suspect something like that would have been worked out in advance.)

[SaschaHM]

20. The convention is a tightly scripted thing.

A public concession/endorsement on the last day when it is supposed to be a day to celebrate the nominee and launch the general election campaign is not going to happen unless the Clinton campaign has approved every single word of that speech and it is glowing in praise and adulation. I'd rather see people more supportive of the nominee provide the final speeches before the nominee speaks on the last day.

[Armstead]

28. That'd be boring as hell

And if my theory is correct (and it may not be) I am sure Sabnders would choreograph things with the convention planning, and thyere would still be plenty of time for "Clinton is Wonderful, Trump Sucks" speeches.

[CrowCityDem]

39. Primetime is one hour a night on the networks.

After the vote, the only time available are for the Presidential and Vice Presidential nominees to speak. If Bernie want to give his half hour stump speech, he won't be able to do it Wednesday or Thursday in primetime. It would have to be Tuesday, and he shouldn't be allowed to do that if he's still telling the delegates that he's a candidate to consider in the vote. The speeches aren't for making your case as a candidate.

[Armstead]

44. I'm not going to debate all of the intri8cies

Adjustments can be made.

And besides, the conventions have become extended infomercials anyway....... No reasons for the networks to carry more than snippets -- or for people to watch -- unless there is some news to be made and some actual piliticing going on, even if its symbolic.

[CrowCityDem]

58. What adjustment? You can't bump Hillary or her VP to make room for Bernie.

It's simple; the only time Bernie will be able to speak to the national audience on every network is Tuesday night. By his own words, he'll still be a candidate at that point, so he shouldn't be allowed to unfairly have time before the delegates vote. Not unless he uses his time to give a full endorsement of Hillary, with none of his complaints about the process thrown in. That wouldn't be the time for it.

[Armstead]

61. There are ways...This is rigid thinking tghat has dominated the primaries

Sometimes one has to think outside of the box.

Bernie could, for example, speak on Tuesday night and still ask his delegates to cast a vote for him for the reasons stated in the OP, while ALSO giving support to Clinton as the Dem candidate, and urge his supporters to vote for the democratic nominee to Stop Trump.

[CrowCityDem]

66. Do you realize what duplicitous bs it is to say "vote for me" and "I support her" at the same time?

If you're a candidate, you're a candidate. If you've conceded, you're not. Any 'candidate' who endorses his opponent while still running is as slimy as Marco Rubio. Bernie is supposed to be above those kinds of political games, or so you've been saying for so long.

This whole thing is about Bernie's ego at this point. If he concedes before the convention, all his delegates will still be there, and they're have the same rights to vote on the platform. All that changes is that we can schedule the convention as it's supposed to be. Staying in, at this point, doesn't make a damn bit of difference to anything but Bernie's perception of himself. He is, literally, putting himself before the entire party.

[Armstead]

83. Do you understand the word "symbolism" and what it means?

If there is no chance Sanders wold accidentally get more votes, why the fuck not allow a large segment of the party to express their opinion at the convention?

[CrowCityDem]

87. He can go through with it. But no speaking slot for him until after, meaning no primetime.

[Armstead]

88. You and i are not drawing up the schedule, so it is immaterial

My basic point is that to change the stagnant template of politics, it's necessary to think differently.

[CrowCityDem]

100. Yeah, because the convention schedule is what voters think about in the booth. Lol.

[SaschaHM]

45. Yep. I'm in total agreement.

[Fozzledick]

74. I think a gracious and enthusiastic endorsement AFTER an honest vote would be far more effective

for party unity than trying to denigrate and push him aside as an insignificant also-ran.

[CrowCityDem]

86. We've had an honest vote. It was called the primaries.

[Fozzledick]

106. Why don't you want the delegates to vote? Be honest now.

[CrowCityDem]

108. They're going to. I want him to endorse Hillary so we can be united on winning, with no distractions

[Fozzledick]

109. What I said is the best time to endorse is AFTER the vote is taken and the nominee confirmed.

Why are you so obsessed with disrupting the process and dividing the party?

[CrowCityDem]

110. Waiting until after the vote looks petty, and means nothing

At that point, it would look like Bernie was only doing it because he has to. Not to mention, it would get lost I the convention coverage. It would a mean more now, where it could get a few new cycles.

[Fozzledick]

112. Bullshit, what looks petty is trying to drive off the competition before the vote.

Playing your best until the end and then congratulating the winner is just basic good sportsmanship.

Again, I have to wonder why you are so obsessed with disrupting the process and dividing the party?

[CrowCityDem]

113. Pointlessly carrying on when everyone knows you lost is divisive.

Bernie already missed the chance to play his 'best hand'. He's losing leverage by the day, since the world has moved on without him. Aside from people waiting for his concession, he hasn't gotten any press since CA. He's now a has been.

[Fozzledick]

114. No answer? So why do you keep repeating a lost argument?

Unless you're just here to disrupt the process and divide the party?

[CrowCityDem]

115. I'm with the majority. Bernie's the one being divisive, by not being a man and conceding.

[Fozzledick]

120. What a sleazy and divisive provocation!

I think I've got my answer now - from someone who just registered at the end of March and has their transparency page displayed with five vitriolic shit-piles.

Bye Felicia.

[bonemachine]

154. lol

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Sun Jun 19, 2016, 10:42 AM, and voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT ALONE.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Sexism cuts both ways.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Weak.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: That's pretty nitpicky. He's a man, I don't think it implies anything negative saying a man should do the right thing.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: What the hell. Bernie is just as much a man, as Hillary is a woman. Knock it off, CrowCityDem!!!
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Yes, the phrase 'not being a man' is sexist. That said, we men are the priveledged class. I will exercise my sexist priveledge and not be offended.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given



"Yes it's sexist, but I'm going to exercise my male privilege to let it stand"


Damn, that's some convoluted justification right there...

[KingFlorez]

18. Or he just can't bring himself to saying that he lost

That is the simpler and more likely explanation.

[Armstead]

19. yeah whatever....it's all about personality and Reality Show drama

Issues don't matter, nor do the 43 percent of voters who supported Sanders for legitimate reasons.

[KingFlorez]

23. Again, he simply cannot bring himself to saying that he lost

You can play conjecture all day, but none of what you pulled out of the air was my point. Sanders' principles don't involve him conceding to someone that he deems to be beneath him.

[ljm2002]

27. "You can play conjecture all day"...

...yes, you can, as you have demonstrated with this post.

[KingFlorez]

29. You can attack me, but it will not change the fact that Sanders lost

[ljm2002]

42. You stated that another poster is engaging in "conjecture"...

...yet, in the very post where you say that, you yourself engage in conjecture, and you are being much less measured about it than the poster to whom you replied. They, at least, state it as a theory, and outline why it makes sense.

You, on the other hand, state your beliefs about Bernie's motivations as though they are fact:

Again, he simply cannot bring himself to saying that he lost

You can play conjecture all day, but none of what you pulled out of the air was my point. Sanders' principles don't involve him conceding to someone that he deems to be beneath him.

So yes, you can "play conjecture all day"; apparently it is something that you are quite practiced at.

Carry on.

[Armstead]

31. This is a fucking political discussion board

What the hell do you have against political discussion?

I don't care if you agree or disagree with the premise of the OP.

But to just demonize "conjecture" with snark any discussion is so shallow.

[KingFlorez]

37. You are pulling things out of the air again

I never said I had anything again political discussion, I merely stated an opinion on why Sanders is still running a race that is over and you stated that I posted things that I did not post, which is conjecture.

[Armstead]

41. You are correct on one level ....So half an apology.

You expressed your opinion.

But it's a simplistic snarky one that does not take into account the many things that are currently tugging at Sanders from different directions.

He knows he has lost the nomination. But he's also trying to figure out how to end it without tossing away the reasons that close to half the party supported him, just to takethe easy way out of conceding now.

[RufusTFirefly]

22. Right. And then the Clintonistas will resurrect the "fringe candidate" narrative

No thanks.

It's important for the future of the Democratic Party for Bernie voters to stand up and be counted.

[KingFlorez]

25. Those voters voted and were counted

Sanders simply lost the race and that is how is. Clinton isn't obligated to step aside for him.

[Arkansas Granny]

94. This reminds me of a relationship where one party wants to end it, but the other party can't/won't

accept that it's over. As long as they can pretend that there is a way forward they keep trying to exercise control of the situation. It's an ego thing.

[RufusTFirefly]

21. Yes! It's like opting for a roll call instead of a voice vote

With a voice vote, both sides can make up any old narrative. Revisionism is commonplace.
It's a little harder to ignore actual numbers.

[YouDig]

24. If he pulls somethin like that I would be in favor of the party retaliating once Hillary is elected.

Take Bernie off of his committee positions, don't let his bills and amendments get votes, certainly don't consult him on any nominations or executive decisions and don't give his opinion weight in crafting legislation. If he wants elected members of the Democratic Party to be helpful towards his policy goals, he's can't be carrying water for Trump by contesting the convention, hurting party unity coming out of it, and making his supporters more likely to stay home in November.

[Armstead]

26. That'd be reallllll smart

Alienate a Congressional ally and Weaken their position in the Senate just for "retaliation."

You know it is quite possiblke that giving Sanders a symbolic vote, then making a dramatic concession and endorsement might actually help party unity in the General.

But your obsession with suppressing all differences sounds more like certain organizations I will not name.

[YouDig]

34. What's Bernie going to do? Start voting with the GOP? I doubt it.

If he does that he will look even more like a bitter egomaniac than he already does. His legacy will be ruined.

What Bernie doesn't realize is that he has only one piece of leverage. Which is, he can help Trump win in November. That's it. It's a really cynical and risky play, basically a doomsday machine, but he's trying to milk it for all it's worth.

But that is temporary leverage, and once the election is done, doomsday or not, then all he will have is the goodwill he has or has not built up with the party. So for now he gets to swing his weight around and act like the party owes him, but come next year, when the actual business of governing starts with the new congress, it's a whole new game. And if he wants to get anything actually done, legislatively, he needs cooperation from the very party that he will have pissed off royally if he pulls any convention stunts.

I do wonder whether he actually cares about legislation. It seems lots of times that he's more into yelling about single payer than actually trying to pass laws that would improve access to healthcare.

[Armstead]

38. You are thinking short term,

This is not about Bernie and Clinton as people. Or about high school style nonsense of "who likes who, and who doesn't like who this week."

It also exists in parallel with the need to Stop Trump and the parallel goal of Oppose the GOP.

Bernie's goals are not mutually exclusive to those goals. And whether Democratic politicians want to have a beer with him is also beside the point.

Hopefully they know the difference, even if you refuse to.

[YouDig]

47. Yes. I am thinking about November, specifically. A lot hinges on that.

What matters now is getting the Bernie people on board to vote for Hillary in November. Bernie's goals (whatever they may be at this point) are not mutually exclusive with that, but they certainly compete with each other.

Whenever he makes a decision to forward his other goals, he is not doing everything he can to make sure Hillary wins. Doing everything he can to help Hillary means endorsing her wholeheartedly and without reservations, the way Hillary did Obama. It means making it very clear that he doesn't believe any of the conspiracy theories about the election being "rigged", that he understands that the people chose Hillary, it wasn't the DNC or open primaries or whatever. And it means, day in and day out, making the case to his supporters that Hillary would be a great president, not just "lesser of two evils", and also that Trump would be a disaster, and that voting for her in November is if highest importance.

So, you say, he can do that part of the time, and the other part of the time push his other goals. Yeah, but if he does that, then half of his efforts are going towards something other than the most important thing. And also, everytime he suggests that there was something unfair about the primaries, he makes his angry supporters more angry and more likely to sit out the election. Same thing everytime he implicitly criticizes Hillary's policies. And, yes, when he says that the Democratic party needs to change and start representing working people instead of big banks, that is a very clear implicit criticism of Hillary. Don't pretend it's not.

And other Democratic politicians understand that perfectly well. It's not about having a beer, it's about being a team player, putting the greater good ahead of himself. If Bernie goes rogue and puts the presidency at risk, and then next year wants the very same Democratic party he's now crapping on to cooperate with him on his legislative agenda, I don't see why they would be very receptive to that.

[Armstead]

56. Neither of us can predict the future...

Bernie might endorse her tomorrow....or never....or something else.

It is quite possible (according to my own theory in the OP) this is a case of "Chill. Bernie's got this." In other words, he could be working on a win-win situation.....If he the DNC and Clinton campaign work it out so that Bernie does give her his active support while also making sure his positions are taken seriously -- and a majority of his supporters are made to feel included in the election and afterward in the long term, and bring in new energy into the Democratic Party.

or not

[YouDig]

60. True dat. I hope you're right that it's "chill, Bernie's got this."

By the way, I would not object at all to Bernie pulling the party left. I'm not with him on everything, but movement towards more progressive would be good in my opinion. Of course, we also need to win seats in red states, so unlike a lot of Berners, I also see the value of having less pure progressives in the party too.

What for sure I object to is "doomsday machine" blackmail, which it really feels like sometimes. Especially when Weaver is on TV. And people respond to me and say "are you scared" to which I say yes I am scared. Even without Trump I would be: GOP controls congress, SCOTUS is looming. And if a GOP president steps in, everything Obama did with executive actions ends on day one. Scary, yes it is.

But maybe Bernie knows exactly what it will take to get his supporters on board, and maybe a normal endorsement speech isn't the thing, maybe he needs to go through this whole thing he's doing and at least give the appearance that the DNC is bending to his wishes. If he's got the master plan, that would be great. But there are a few things that definitely would not help unifying the party.

1 If his delegates boo any of the other speakers at the convention, especially if they boo Hillary.
2 If Bernie's convention speech is full of implicit criticisms of Hillary
3 If there are huge protests outside the convention that take attention away from the speeches

None of that is good. I guess we'll see.

[Armstead]

62. Yep....But also remember that this transcends Sanders

There are a lot of pissed off people who support Sanders but are not at his beck and call.

And outside of the Democratic party there are pissed off people who don't even support Sanders because he is too "moderate."

I think some rock and roll is fine -- but as a person of moderate temperament, I don't think it should cross certain lines.

It's like I have long been totally in favor of mass protests against things like the WTO and "Free Trade" and the things OWS stood for . But I also don't like it when protesters have gone too far and engaged either in violence or destruction of property.

But we're talking about a wider sense of collective frustration and anger among millions of people the general population, so no one can predict or control what might ultimately happen.

[RufusTFirefly]

30. Brilliant strategy! Brilliant!

After all, all the angry and alienated Bernie supporters can easily be replaced by refugees from the Republican Party, who are better in sync with Hillary's warmongering, Wall Street loving policies anyhow.

Go Hillary Go!

[YouDig]

35. By then the election will be over and Hillary will be president. No more Bernie or Bust threats.

[NorthCarolina]

55. That's probably some really great advice. I hope that Clinton and the DNC actually do try this.

It will hasten the demise of neoliberal influence on the party.

[PowerToThePeople]

175. YouDig

a cave?

[JackRiddler]

32. Of course, and it's not a theory.

It's bad enough the 101 ways in which the process and the elections were rigged, if not outright stolen.

Now, after wasting our time for 10 months with a basically absurd and arbitrary, laughable process, at least let the goddamn delegates vote.

[brush]

36. Nah! He's still praying to the indictment fairy. Hey, who knows, it could happen.

And do you realize this election wasn't that close, compared to the 2008 campaign especially.

He lost by near-landslide margins, way fewer votes, delegates, super delegates and states won.

Hillary's lost to Obama in '08 was razor thin — she even had more votes, he more delegates — yet she did none of this holding out to "show a level of support for his (her) message and policies" crap.

She conceded before the convention, campaign for Obama and had the ballot counting at the convention suspended and called for Obama to be declared the Democratic Party nominee by acclamation.

That's how it's done. That's how you lose gracefully, and btw, bank goodwill for possible future campaigns.

Oh, maybe that's it, Bernie knows there will be no future campaigns for him in the Democratic Party, not after he's blown all his goodwill with this withholding his endorsement, sour grapes, sore loser even though it wasn't even that close debacle he has orchestrated. Too bad for him.

[Armstead]

43. From the expectation of 5 or 10 percent to 43 pecent (about) is worth paying attention to

And I wold also point out that many people who voted for Cliunton for "pragmatic" reasons of "electability" and/or because she is female or because they don't like Bernie's personality have also expressed agreement (and even a preference) for the message and goals of Sanders.

So your "landslide" analogy is not a good excuse to once again push all issues under the rug. Bernie demonstrated resoundingly that they are mainstream positions.

[brush]

50. Ahhh . . . he's hardly the first to propose many of those positions. Democrats have . . .

always been for many of those things in varying degrees. How to achieve them has always been the sticking points, what with repug obstructionism being a real obstacle.

And fyi, although I'm sure you know this already, 60% to 40% is the landslide threshold, so 57% to 43% is a near-landslide, as I said.

He did a good job up until this non-conceding debacle, but it wasn't that close.

[Armstead]

52. Time will tell.....

In any case, my speculation is just speculation.

Bernie might endorse her tomorrow....Or he might never endorse her....or something in between.

[villager]

49. Many posters here are already writing as if the Sanders campaign never happened...

...or even as if it were a grievous insult to the Democratic party.

So the theory makes sense.

[Armstead]

53. Or -- worse -- just a minor little blip

[villager]

57. ...to be safely-- insistently -- ignored, going forward. nt

[mikehiggins]

64. They have to crush Sanders, not just defeat him

Since everyone on DU seems to have an opinion, here's mine:

The Clinton camp has to crush Sanders so their inevitable move back to the "center" can be more easily deflected as just the complaints of a defeated foe. So long as the campaign continues the issues raised will be open for discussion, something that will not happen if Sanders capitulates. I am sure that HRC will happily abandon all of her "leftist principles", most of which have only become visible during the course of the last year, as soon as his signature is on the dotted line.

As to the idea that, if actually indicted, HRC would withdraw from the race, that is simply nonsense. She hasn't come this far to walk away no matter what the reason. Fortunately, the GOPuke candidate has so many legal problems already that it would be "sexist" to claim she should leave the race while Trump goes on. Also, Sanders cannot believe that he would end up the nominee in such a case. There is no reason to suspect that would happen.

So, as the OP states, a roll-call vote will demonstrate that the Sanders campaign has brought to the fore ideals and principles that resonate with a large number of actual Democratic Party members. A coronation will simply brush them aside in favor of the Clintonian Third Way programs that have so thoroughly crippled our party.

I was very happy to support Sanders from day one. If he gives up before the first ballot I will be very, very disappointed in him. Not as much as if he actually endorsed HRC but still, very, very disappointed.

As to the Clintonians on DU, she won. Why is it so important to you to have Sanders surrender, smile and make nice? Certainly his continuing onto the convention floor is not preventing Secretary Clinton from taking on Trump, as the recent 27 million dollar ad buy demonstrates so obviously.

Everyone recognises that HRC has won. Why does Sanders matter so much? Why not just shut up and let things unfold as they will? That is what I would do.

And, I guess, will do so from now on.

See ya in Philly.

[Else You Are Mad]

80. Well put and 100% correct. Nt

[Armstead]

81. Exactly...."Certainly his continuing onto the convention floor is not preventing.."

I don't understand why people don't realize it is possible to walk and chew gum at the same time.

[Pastiche423]

111. I was told by a Bernie supporter that the reason he hasn't

endorsed her is because:

"If Sanders never endorses Clinton, then he'll probably never be Chair of the Budget Committee (as punishment for not endorsing her.)"

[pnwmom]

136. Trump is using Bernie's failure to concede to attack Hillary.

He's claiming that the reason Bernie's not conceding is that he's waiting for her to be indicted. As long as Bernie withholds his support, that's going to be Trump's bullshit, and his followers have shown an amazing ability to swallow crap.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/18/politics/donald-trump-conscience-clause/

"Crazy Bernie," Trump said of the Vermont senator. "He's crazy as a bed bug, but he doesn't quit."

"He's waiting for the FBI to do what everybody thinks they're going to do," Trump added. "I think he's saying, 'Let's hang in there because its ultimately called the FBI... We'll see if the right thing happens.
Everybody knows what the right thing is."

Trump made a similar rally at his second rally on Saturday, in Phoenix.

"Bernie, he doesn't quit," Trump said. "He's in there bitching."

[Armstead]

150. And once Bernie endorses her Trump will never say anything nasty again

yeah right,,,makes a lot of sense.

If Bernie does endorse her Trump will say "See. Bernie is endirsing her. That proves she's a socialist."

[NCTraveler]

65. Take out crown and ring so I can recommend it.

Enjoyed reading.

[brooklynite]

71. ...so a year of campaigning wasn't enough to show the level of his support?

...and six months of voting wasn't enough to show the level of his support?

...and giving up an opportunity to address the Convention is worth having another opportunity to show the level of his support?

[Armstead]

75. Nope

The dismissive comments posted here about how he is just an afterthought, doesn't matter, no support, etc. reflect the eagerness to continue to repress differing opinions under the guise of "unity."

[Fozzledick]

72. BINGO! We have a winner!

And that's also why the corporatist Brockian ratfuckers are so viciously intent on harassing him into dropping out prematurely; not because it hurts Hilary to have him in the race, but because they want to purge and expel the progressive, populist wing of the Democratic Party that they see as a rival for their monopoly control of the national party apparatus.

It actually helps Hillary for the general election to have Bernie campaigning as long as possible since his presence effectively reframes her as the moderate centrist in the race and precludes the Republicans' knee-jerk attempts to frame her as "the libbiest liberal that ever libbed" (yes, I actually have seen her called that online) and helps prevent the media coverage from degenerating into all-Trump-all-the-time, but unfortunately some are more concerned with elbowing out their competitors within the party than uniting to confront the Republicans.

[OnDoutside]

90. Nonsense. The biggest pot of gold Sanders has, are the emails and contact details of those who

donated to him. THAT'S where his strength is, and the ability to mobilise them for future elections. And it's why the DNC wouldn't or couldn't "expel" him and his supporters.

[Armstead]

93. That's certainly one of the big negotiable points

[OnDoutside]

96. I wouldn't be a supporter of Bernie, as I've seen plenty of his type here in Europe but if I were

him, I'd be hanging onto that database but offer to forward mailshots etc.

[djean111]

142. And I would be clicking on "unsubscribe" with great enjoyment and gusto. n/t

[OnDoutside]

158. I'm sure they're lying awake over that.

[djean111]

159. Oh, I know - they care as much about that as they care about anything you do. Which is not at all.

In fact, you are, I think, irrelevant to the election. Unless you are lying about Ireland, you simply do not count for anything at all.

'bye!

[felix_numinous]

152. Then they are more

delusional than I thought. Plus she ALREADY hacked the list, people have already heard from her campaign, she just wants to legitimize getting all the information, and I suspect for getting people back not for good. Sorry I have totally lost my trust with some people, unfortunately learned the hard way.

Cheers

[OnDoutside]

157. Well I'm sure you'll regale us of never having participated in the politics before, but the DNC gave

Sanders his initial list of contacts.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

78. In simpler terms: It's the right thing to do.

Opinions may differ.

[felix_numinous]

91. People have to be allowed to declare themselves

and be counted for the record for future reference to contrast the manufactured consent here. To give honest people a point of reference as we move forward.

[Armstead]

92. Exactamente

pardon my lousy French

[felix_numinous]

95. Plus we are developing skills

in not allowing ourselves to be distracted or psyched out, and staying on task. Bernie Sanders is demonstrating and inspiring many people in how to do this already.

[Armstead]

148. Good point....I hope you're correct

[jillan]

97. Bernie is fighting for something bigger than Hillary. She is just a bump in the road of

trying to bring the party back to FDR principals.

[OnDoutside]

98. Does anyone know if an End of Campaign process automatically kick into place if Sanders concedes ?

At what point would he lose his Secret Service detail, and financially is it far more restrictive, if he officially announces his concession ?

[djean111]

143. If your intent is to imply that Bernie is only continuing for money and security reasons -

no. You are ignoring his message. Probably quite deliberately, but that is just my opinion, of course. .

[OnDoutside]

156. His message is one of bluster and over promising but I was interested in the mechanics of what

happens when a candidate officially pulls out of the race.

[senz]

104. Hillary Clinton does not have the nomination. She has not "won." It is not official.

As we've learned over the past couple of days (and as most of us knew anyway), she had it all wrapped up before even declaring her candidacy. The voting was always a formality, and her camp did what it needed to do for some of the closer contests.

The despicably timed AP announcement of June 6, a day earlier than promised, was prompted by the last shimmer of Hill camp panic when it looked like Sanders might pull even due to a heavy California turnout.

You've been sounding his death knell for nearly two weeks now. You wrap it in soft, complimentary rhetoric, appropriately resigned but in eulogistic form, and every time it amounts to the same thing.

You come both to praise him and to bury him.

But the fact remains: he ain't dead yet.

[Lord Magus]

118. What's despicable is your absurd conspriacy theory about the AP announcement.

The AP announced a winner because there was a winner. The idea that Hillary's camp feared losing CA is a joke.

[Armstead]

147. Maybe you're....

But to use a term I don't like, I'm being "realistic"

Sorry. I hope you are correct, but as Bernie says "I'm pretty good at math."

(Actually I'm horrible at math, but in this case, it'd take a miracle.)

[senz]

151. If the math said he had lost, he woud have conceded.

But the math says neither has won, so he's staying in.

He has in the past spoken about factors that could lead the SDs to flip for him.

[Starry Messenger]

105. It's his mailing list and donor database.

The DNC wants it. It's a huge asset, so he does have some leverage there. He's losing the media narrative though, so hopefully they will work something out soon.

[Silver_Witch]

129. I like this theory Armstead and I think you might be right.

[Ken Burch]

130. Nothing wrong with that. It's perfectly legitimate to do that.

Last edited Sun Jun 19, 2016, 11:48 PM - Edit history (1)

It would be a tragedy for HRC to be nominated without opposition, and for the party to spend the entire convention week acting as if the Sanders campaign never happened.

Only people who don't want this party to stand for anything and don't want anything to change in this country at all would benefit from a convention like that.

[Armstead]

146. That's what some seem to want -- Mindless Monotony disguised as "unity"

[Overseas]

153. I agree. I want that affirmation of the important issues we voted for.

She could do a lot of good if she used the "Berners made me do it" defense--

-- Back out of the TPP because we all know it would increase income inequality and destroy environmental regulations

-- Ban fracking because it is dangerous to local communities all over the country and to the environment because we need to leave the gas in the ground

-- Institute emergency infrastructure greening projects nationwide to honor our commitment to reduce our CO2 emissions dramatically

-- Add in a Single Payer option to the ACA or jump right in to Medicare for All because we all know we need it in this challenging economy and as climate change brings in more challenges and it would help with income inequality by reducing medical bankruptcies

[pnwmom]

135. Why should a minority of delegates be able to force their positions

on the clear majority?

The election wasn't close.

[Armstead]

145. You're right....40 percent of the primary voters don't count. They're NOTHING.

Forget them.

Don't need voters.

[pnwmom]

155. You're saying that the minority should get to make the decisions.

You're adding filibuster rules into the convention, apparently.

That's not how it works.

[Armstead]

161. Its called negotiation and compromise

Something "centrists" are supposedly all for.

[pnwmom]

163. But Bernie's speech on Thursday was all about the "musts." Not about

compromise.

Hillary's $12 minimum wage -- with higher amounts supported in any state or locality that wants it -- is already a compromise between the current (under $8) and Bernie's must-have $15.

[peace13]

181. You sound like my rethug senator's office helper.

I called Voinovich's office one day to encourage a no vote on the Iraq war. The kid said to me,'It stinks to be in the minority, doesn't it?'. Some years later when Voinovich went down to defeat I could not reign in my Higher Self and had to place the call and let the Senator know how it stinks to be in the minority. The lesson is, go ahead and ignore the others at your peril. There just may come a time when you need them. I hope your strategy works for you, my guess is it will backfire.

[Orsino]

166. Why shouldn't a pool of delegates and candidates be able to compromise?

No rules require an all-or-nothing convention. Broadening of a nominee's appeal shouldn't only consist of tacking right.

I hear our nominee once had some experience as a diplomat.

[pnwmom]

167. Did you listen to Bernie's last address from his home?

He wasn't suggesting compromise or sounding conciliatory. The speech listed one "must-do-this" after another.

[Orsino]

168. I know certain politicians like to pre-negotiate away items at issue...

...but Sanders has kept his campaign alive in part because he won't. He wants us to accomplish big things.

If the nominee works with Sanders, and vice versa, we are likely to end up with a platform that a little more progressive, and we all win. I sense a lingering desire to see Sanders lose, to act like a loser, and to be treated like a loser. However, there's real work to be done in the nation and the world. Why not join us?

[pnwmom]

169. Why not join US? The diverse majority of Democratic voters who voted for Hillary? n/t

[Orsino]

171. See, that just sounds like more kneel-before-Zod stuff.

"Hillary Clinton" is not a platform. A united Democratic Party is going to come from our working for the best that both candidates offer, and yes, even the mominee will find she has to compromise a bit to win bigger. Better yet, we may find that our candidates and delegates are listening to all of us who care to get involved.

In physics it's called constructive interference, and it's going to determine just what we're all going to be canvassing and volunteering for.

[pnwmom]

172. I haven't seen any indication that he wants to compromise on the platform.

His last speech was full of "musts."

[Orsino]

174. Because he doesn't pre-negotiate away what he wants to win.

I know that's the fashion these days, but what Sanders stands for, mainly, is stuff we need. We will be pushing the nominee to work for some of the same things.

[pnwmom]

179. Only his supporters think we "need" all the things he says we "must" have.

For example, the progressive economists who showed that raising the minimum wage doesn't suppress employment ALSO said this only holds if you don't raise it too high. $12 an hour was determined, by research, to be the current level that wouldn't depress employment -- it's not a figure the Democratic Senators pushing the minimum wage law pulled out of a hat.

Well, Hillary has compromised. She supports the $12 national min recommended by liberal economists, but also would support any state or locality that wanted to raise it higher than that -- because a $12 min in rural Georgia is not equivalent to $12 in Brooklyn.

However, she doesn't support raising it to $15 nationally as long as the research shows that would cause employers to shed jobs.

[Gothmog]

137. Put Senator Warren on the ticket so that we can ignote Sanders

If Sanders plays the gsme described in the OP, then he should not get a speech at the convention. I am also less inclined to support any of Sanders proposals if Sanders plays the gamed described in the OP

[Armstead]

144. That's silly....You'd not support something you might agree with because he supports it?

[Gothmog]

149. With Warren on the ticket, Clinton does not have to pay attention to sanders games

Sanders has very little true bargaining power

After hearing Sanders delegates boo Clinton Texas convention, i am less inclined to give into Sanders demands

[Vinca]

139. I think he's reluctant to get out before the FBI report is released.

Should the worst case scenario happen, he would be the obvious plan B as the runner-up candidate. If he gets out they might draft Biden.

[robbedvoter]

140. Either that, or he is terrified his supporters would do to him what he had them do

to countless SDs, people endorsing HRC https://twitter.com/EnemyWithinn/status/743604682145271808

[Orsino]

141. His stated purpose is indeed to promote his agenda.

Not just a theory.

[pnwmom]

165. Why should his agenda take priority over hers? The voters chose Hillary and her agenda.

[Orsino]

173. She's not in primary mode anymore.

She is in the unenviable position of having to herd all those Democratic cats into a corral that we can call a platform. The primary wasn't all or nothing, the convention won't be, the general won't be, and the job of presidenting sure as hell can never be.

Keeping score between the two candidates at this late date isn't thinking big enough. They'll be working together to defeat Trump or whatever reluef pitcher the GOP fields. We can, too.

[pnwmom]

180. He is -- unless and until he suspends his primary campaign. nt

[TeamPooka]

164. He's still running so he can still raise money through donations. nt

[liberal N proud]

177. Money, Money, Money

[The Wielding Truth]

176. Sounds logical.

[peace13]

178. Does it seem weird to anyone that this can be posted....

....but if one were to defend Bernie they would have an immediate hide? Does anyone see the double standard.