Top Sanders supporter: He must endorse Clinton before the Dem convention

[brooklynite]

Washington Post:

On MSNBC today, Bernie Sanders once again declined to endorse Hillary Clinton, and did not signal any particular urgency, or even any timeline, for doing so. He stuck to his ongoing claim that his focus right now is to make the Democratic Party platform as progressive as possible.

Will Sanders’s top supporters in the Democratic Party be able to abide that position for much longer?

In an interview with me this afternoon, Dem Rep. Raul Grijalva — the co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and one of Sanders’s most important supporters in Congress — said that Sanders should endorse Clinton before the convention, and suggested that the failure to do so could make the job of defeating Donald Trump harder.

“It’s got to happen prior to the convention,” Grijalva told me. “It would make coalescing to defeat Donald Trump easier. It makes the process of unifying to defeat Trump and elect Hillary smoother.” At the convention, Grijalva added, there should be no uncertainty about Sanders’s position, so that the topic can be all about “defeating Donald Trump and the content of the platform.”

[geek tragedy]

1. He doesn't need to, and probably won't.

He'll get off the stage, and out of the way, in late July, and that's about as much as we can expect from him.

Clinton will beat Trump, without his help. (And that won't be forgotten either)

[Adrahil]

2. And all his movement building will sadly go to waste.

He really had built something. And he'll toss it away. Bad decision, IMO.

[geek tragedy]

5. the movement will be there, but the reality will be shown

that it's not relevant to the task of electing people to office so they can enact policies. It's the Occupy movement with a figurehead--he didn't build it so much as he tapped into it.

when Clinton wins without his help, she'll owe him exactly nothing, and will have that much to fear from him criticizing her going forward.

[MADem]

9. The Occupy movement with a figurehead--that's it, in a nutshell. nt

[Adrahil]

10. Yeah, that's basically what I was getting at.

Being the head of movement that makes itself irrelevant is kind of pointless. By not becoming an essential part of the Clinton coalition, he's in a no win situation now. If she loses, he bears some responsibility (from a party point of view) and if she wins, then he establishes himself as irrelevant. Either way, he has lost whatever influence he might have had.

[geek tragedy]

12. he's a protestor, not a negotiator. nt

[tallahasseedem]

15. Precisely why a majority voted against himq for the Presidency.

If he can't negotiate in the Senate, or even with the people whose party he's running with... then no.

[anotherproletariat]

61. Too much idealism rarely translates into useful policy.

[Hortensis]

70. Jefferson was an idealist who was also a

highly functional politician, a sensible consensus builder. He recognized that the time was ripe to establish equality of all men in the new nation, and he organized competently to make it happen in spite of powerful and intense opposition.

People with "extremist" personality tendencies are often considered idealist because they've adopted ideas, which their authors may understand are not doable at present, and insist nothing else will do. They are not really more idealistic than those who hopefully developed the new ideas in the first place, though.

The ACA is a great and hard-won advance over the mess we had before, but some are greatly hostile toward it because they consider it only a giant barrier to their ideal which must be dismantled before the ideal can be pursued.

Which brings us to wondering what Sanders will do next.

[Number23]

55. You're exactly right. On all counts, but especially this one

And all his movement building will sadly go to waste.

[MADem]

7. I don't really understand his thought process in this 'delay.'

I don't think he appreciates that it's not helpful to him in the long haul.

It's his choice, though. At the end of the day, we have a nominee, she is getting full bore and highly articulate support from the most respected progressive under the Democratic tent, and she's gonna kick ass in November.

[BlueCaliDem]

26. This pretty much how I see it, too. eom

[MADem]

34. I am starting to wonder if he will bother to run for re-election in 2018.

There is absolutely NO "upside" to being perceived as outside the ruling government party while staying "inside the tent"--at least putatively. All it does is invite avoidance by one's peers at best, and scorn at worst. And, like it or not, you need those peers if you want to get anything done.

However, if one were to retire, and write a best-selling book, and go on a speaker's tour, that kind of process has potential to be lucrative, at least in the short term. It also provides an unfettered platform for one's views.


I just can't see his game plan. He's not hurting Clinton at this point, every day, people are pivoting and moving on. Warren has seen to that - and she will be well rewarded, in whatever fashion she chooses, for her big-picture dedication.

SIDEBAR: I thought it was odd how Leahy decided NOT to retire after he'd previously said he would (he will be re-elected easily this year). I wonder if he wanted to keep a bit of continuity in the VT Senatorial delegation because he knows something that the rest of us don't know.

I (and, of course, many others) suspect that the VT governor has his eye on the Senate (though he might have trouble after that failed attempt at single payer). A few years' distance between his run and that debacle might not be a bad idea....

It'll be interesting to see what happens.

[geek tragedy]

39. the Senate is a good gig for him, he's staying put nt

[JRLeft]

37. You have no idea what you are talking about.

[geek tragedy]

40. check out his Twitter feed every time he says anything non-critical about Clinton nt

[JRLeft]

43. The movement is about keeping people involved and getting new people involved

in the political process. So you're wrong. Hillary doesn't help herself because she rarely sells her vision. She spends most of her time attacking the idiot instead telling people what her plans are.

She would help herself by explaining her policies.

She would be further ahead IMO if she sold herself more. Explain why the dissenters are wrong about her.

[WhiteTara]

52. Well, he has a great pension

and won't need to work. Jane did make a bundle. and they could travel.

[Tal Vez]

3. People should let Sanders do whatever he wants to do.

Sanders is a professional politician. He's been around a long time and he will figure out what is best for him to do. That's why he is still around after all these years.

It is interesting to see the difference between his approach and the approach of Elizabeth Warren. Obviously, she has an eye to the future. She sees where things are going. She knows that 2016 has the potential to be a very important year in terms of electing folks who can make some important changes in this country. It is clear that Elizabeth Warren wants to participate.

[fun n serious]

4. He won't get a speaking slot

It migh be better that he doesn't.

[morningfog]

6. I expect that he will.

[frazzled]

22. I expect that he won't

Unless put to extreme duress by the Democrats (e.g., demoting him in his committee assignments). I don't think he will because of character issues that were evident from the beginning, indeed, that have been talked about for many years: not a team player, doesn't abide anyone or anything that interferes with his own ideas, won't compromise, self-absorbed and self-righteous. Colleagues and people who have worked for him have said this, so I'm not just stating my own opinion.

But it IS important that he do so. Why? Because without that white flag lifted, his pledged delegates are being given the signal to fight on at the convention. Which is only good for Republicans and Donald Trump. Which is bad for the whole country. He needs to put country before self.

[MaggieD]

8. Who cares?

With Warren out there stumping it really does not matter what Bernie does or doesn't do.

[Frances]

14. Good point

[leftofcool]

18. Exactly!

[NurseJackie]

23. Exactly. Who cares anymore? He's played the "will he/won't he" game for too long ...

... and he's been teasing the news media with too many "important speeches" (that were actually just a rehash of the campaign) instead of being important enough to actually be breaking news. As soon as the media figures out that he's got nothing new to say, they cut-away to commercial or return to their regularly scheduled programming.

Nobody likes to be played. If he ever does concede and endorse, it will be a non-event. No network will cover it live. CNN may give him a 25-character blurb on their scrolling ticker at most.

[Human101948]

30. Yeah, if he had something new to say like Trump, they'd have him on 24/7...

Hey, get over it. Hillary is the nominee.

[comradebillyboy]

31. Andrea Mitchell will always be there to give Bernie a forum...

[NurseJackie]

41. I remember her. Which network is she on?

[Gothmog]

25. With both Warren and Obama supporting her, Clinton does not have to make further concessions

[mcar]

47. True

He lost his chance to be relevant in the campaign, IMHO.

[BlueMTexpat]

49. + a million! eom

[Number23]

56. + a million. Every time I see his name here -- and DU is the ONLY place on earth that I even see his

name mentioned regularly -- that's always my first response. WHO CARES?

[tblue37]

13. Once the platform is set and convention speaking roles have been negotiated he will. Right

now he sees his endorsement as the best bargaining chip he has left.

He also has to ease his more intense supporters into accepting that he endorses her. If he gives in too quickly, they could turn away from the Democratic party completely and even vote against our down ticket candidates.

[geek tragedy]

28. those who have not endorsed do not get convention speaking slots

not in prime time anyways.

I don't think he really cares about that sort of thing.

[Andy823]

36. Here is the problem

The vast majority of Democrats that supported him have already come over to the Clinton side, those more "intense" supporters are the one who hate Hillary, and no matter what Bernie does or says, they will NEVER vote for her, period. Many of them are not even Democrats. If he is wasting time trying to cater to those kinds of supporters, he will end up with no part of trying to change things in the future. He could really make a difference if he wants to, but the way he has been acting makes me wonder if he even wants to anymore.

[oasis]

54. +1000

[CrowCityDem]

16. If he doesn't, I don't see any reason for Dems to give him anything in the Senate.

He will have not done the bare minimum a Democrat should do to ensure they control the White House.

[leftofcool]

17. Too late. No one cares any more.

[MohRokTah]

19. IF he doesn't, he won't have as much power as a newly minted Fresman in the Senate.

It's really sad watching somebody destroy themself and everything they spent a lifetime working on over ego driven bullshit because they lost.

[MaggieD]

20. That works for me

But yeah, it's sad. I know they are being nice to him now, but I think after the election he is going to be a very lonely guy up in the senate.

[Gothmog]

21. Sanders needs to concede if he wants a prime time convention speech

[tonyt53]

24. I suspect Sanders will change his registration back to independent after the November election

May as well.

[LongtimeAZDem]

33. His Senate website press releases never stopped identifying him as "Sen. Sanders (I-VT)" (nt)

[obamanut2012]

27. I think Warren's vigorous public advocacy has rendered much of that moot

[JoePhilly]

42. +1

[leftynyc]

29. He loses relevance daily

With Warren out there - with Pres Obama, VP Biden, Michelle and Jill ready - Bernie is already an afterthought. He could have made such a difference but decided a hissy fit was more appropriate. His loss.

[enid602]

32. bern

Ah yes, the long awaited Bernexit.

[Maru Kitteh]

45. pa dum pum . . . . !

[politicaljunkie41910]

35. If the media would quit interviewing him about an endorsement he'd quickly get the message just how

irrelevant he has become to the majority of us out here. I saw the interview with Andrea Mitchell this morning and for a second I thought about how pleasant the past week has been for me since I hadn't had to listen to his whining about how Hillary had to accept HIS Platform in order to obtain his support. I guess he's seen the handwriting on the wall and with so much more important things happening around the world, no one missed him, which is why I'm sure he leaped at the invitation by Mitchell to be interviewed this a.m.

There's too much at stake in November for us to become the disfunctional party that the GOP has become, just to satisfy one man's narcissism. Bernie's had his run and he was successful in pushing her further to the left than she was at the start of the campaign. Time to get off the stage now. I'm sure that he can now go write a book about it and all his supporters will buy it and he'll become one of the one percenters that he seemed to despise while on the campaign trail. The Clinton's had no real money to speak of until they left office and both wrote books which were best sellers.

[glowing]

38. Why worry about Sander's if he's so irrelevant

Why is it important he endorse Hillary at this point before the platform is built? And why is DU allowing for a democrat to be lamblasted.

[Maru Kitteh]

60. It's so very rare, even for a recent Democrat, to act in a way that could be construed

as unseemly toward the Democratic Party and/or the Democratic nominee.

To heck with endorsing, how about the basic sportsmanship that we teach and expect in youth sports? When you have a contest, and you lose, you shake hands and congratulate the winner.

Odd to say you'll vote for someone else when you haven't even bothered to admit that you've lost a contest, don't you think?

So weird to give an interview months after you were mathematically eliminated and weeks after the final contests were all completed, claiming you won't admit you lost because suddenly, you think it's up to you to fight for exactly the things the whole party and the nominee have been fighting for already for decades?

So unusual.

See, when a Democrat runs intentionally afoul of the party in general, and the nominee, they become the subject of open criticism and critique by Democrats. This being Democratic Underground, one should expect to see the same here.

It's nothing new for Democrats, or Democratic Underground.

[glowing]

63. This is why since 2004, I haven't bought a

membership star or that I even rarely frequent this site. Never have I felt as if
I was dealing with Republicans on DU since Clinton announced.

[Maru Kitteh]

66. Rude for you to suggest DU has been republican for 14 years

It's difficult to imagine that anyone should be surprised to find that the Democratic Party and Democratic Party presidential nominees are embraced and defended on Democratic Underground. It's difficult to imagine anyone asserting with any credibility that doing so is "republican."

[Maru Kitteh]

68. I don't think you wrote the content well enough. "This is why since 2004, I haven't bought . .

"This is why since 2004, I haven't bought a membership star"

[Onlooker]

44. Stop worrying about Sanders

Last edited Thu Jun 30, 2016, 02:50 AM - Edit history (2)

The fact is that he's a really smart guy who, despite his views, came close to winning the Democratic nomination. His campaign was brilliant in many respects. I think he wants Hillary to win, and he's playing it the way he thinks is best, not the way the pundits think is best.

Sanders is no fool. If his supporters see him as a tool of the Democratic establishment, he will be less influential. He is not a tool. My guess is that he will endorse her by arguing that the movement he helped create can achieve more progress under her than under Donald Trump. But he's going to time his endorsement for maximum exposure. If he did it now, hardly anyone would be attention. If he does it right before the Democratic Convention, everyone will be paying attention.

[randome]

51. Elizabeth Warren is smarter than Sanders. If she can endorse Clinton, why can't Sanders?

[Maru Kitteh]

59. ????? The "Democrat" Convention??????

Is this where we are supposed to say megga-dittos or something?

[mcar]

46. Saw this too

I agree completely. He's losing any influence he may have had. I truly don't get the strategy.

[cosmicone]

48. He is like a doctor who can examine a patient

and look at all the results while reciting hundreds of things that are wrong but not offer a single solution.

[MaggieD]

50. Bingo

That's exactly what it's like.

[Beausoir]

53. Who?

[grossproffit]

57. And miss the fart in? No way!

[NastyRiffraff]

62. Thread winner!

[ecstatic]

64. lol! nt

[LongtimeAZDem]

58. He has to if he wants get convention time, but I bet he'll wait unil the last minute (nt)

[akbacchus_BC]

65. To be honest. let Mr. Sanders do what he feels he needs to do. Freedom of speech etc.

He already said he will vote for Mrs. Clinton. All Mr. Sanders wants is for Mrs. Clinton to work for poor people, raise minimum wage. Is that so terrible for a person who has gained so much momentum in the primaries? He is looking out for poor people and the middle class!

And you know what, she is listening and having gone through a primary a second time, am sure she knows what she has to do!

[Orsino]

69. Article fails to support its thesis.

And the headline changes "should" to "must."

[youceyec]

71. If he keeps this

up I will do what I can to make sure he does not win reelection in senate. And Im not alone.