How Bernie Sanders missed his moment - By Stuart Rothenberg

[DonViejo]

Bernie Sanders effectively articulated a set of progressive values and issue positions that energized younger voters and the Democratic Party’s left. That earned him kudos for his passion and electoral success.

Even more important, Sander’s performance during the presidential nominating process gave him leverage with Hillary Clinton, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, who has wanted Sander’s enthusiastic endorsement for weeks.

But instead of using that leverage when it was at its peak, Sanders bungled the greatest political opportunity he will ever have. Instead of getting on board with the Clinton campaign, the former mayor of Burlington, Vt., and member of Congress hesitated, resisted, dithered and shilly-shallied.

Now, after Clinton has opened up a significant advantage in general election ballot tests over Republican Donald Trump, a Sanders endorsement will be anticlimactic, welcomed by Clinton but certainly not the blockbuster it would have been even a few of weeks ago.

Why the change? Because Clinton doesn’t need Sanders anymore. At least not the way she once needed his embrace. The former secretary of state has an enthusiastic endorser that is even better than Bernie: Elizabeth Warren, the Massachusetts senator whose populism and charisma excites the same people who supported Sanders during the primaries and caucuses.

more
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/06/30/how-bernie-sanders-missed-his-moment/?wpisrc=nl_politics&wpmm=1

[Orsino]

2. Ridiculous spin.

Sanders used his great success in the primary to get the most influence he could over the direction of the party. We're seeing his fingerprints on the pkatform, and to our great surprise they look like our fingerprints.

Sanders seized about as much of the moment as he could with the runner-up level of support we gave him. The Establishment simply wishes he had fallen in line and disappeared earlier, and that he won't be showing up in Philly with a lot of like-minded citizens.

[Chathamization]

4. Yeah, it's a bizarre argument. If Sanders had endorsed Clinton in May, what would be different? Does

anyone think that Clinton would have suddenly adopted single-payer as part of her platform?

Or maybe these people are just stuck with the mentality of the elite, where policy isn't important and the ultimate goal is to get as close as you can to the levers of power, whether or not you have any control over those levers. I guess to people who have that mentality, Sanders lost his chance to become a high-level Clinton surrogate by "wasting his time" pushing progressive policy.

[DCBob]

7. The Clinton team and the DNC were more in the mood to negotiate back then.

He could have negotiated for something significant like adding many of his wish list items to the platform, getting rid of the superdelegate system or restructuring the DNC.. etc.

Those things are less likely to happen now.

[Chathamization]

19. Do you really think that single-payer isn't in the platform because Sanders hasn't endorsed Clinton

yet? Or that if he had, the superdelegates would be gone now? Seems very unlikely to me.

[Armstead]

25. Like Bernie wants something harmful?

The Democratic Party should be eagerly embracing reforms in the primary process, and the basic positions Sanders has been advocating for. Maybe not his specific "wish list" but the basic message and policy priorities.

Personally I don't think restoring sensible scale to banks and true balance to the financial system is an awful idea. Nor is truly universal and affordable health care is an awful thing. Nor is saving the planet from environmental disaster. Or making sure all kids have financial access to college.....Or not throwing people in jail and ruining their lives for smoking a reefer.

[DCBob]

37. Some in the party might see it that way.

Consensus is needed for big changes like Bernie is suggesting. Thats not likely to happen now.

[politicaljunkie41910]

43. Bernie wanted HIS specific "wish list" and couldn't have made it more clearer.

It's not like we didn't try the single payer route, not once but twice. We couldn't even get the bluedog Democrats to go along with single payer in 2008 which is why we had to scrap it. Bernie with his is uncompromising stance was promising things that he couldn't deliver and his followers even have stated that he didn't promise to deliver those thing in a first term. Well if he didn't deliver on his major promises in his first term, there would be no first term. It was also unrealistic to propose things he couldn't deliver on since we didn't control of either House, and the probability of us taking back the HoR before 2022 (the first election following the next census and redistricting) is damn near impossible as most of the GOP are in gerrymandered districts.

The fact that he was never really a member of the Democratic Party until he ran for President, was always angry and disparaging towards the true Democratic candidate during rallies and debates, had a history of being non-compromising, was a self-professed socialist which could have cost many votes from Independents who couldn't get past the "socialist" tag, and didn't endear himself to many of us older voters who have been members of the Democratic Party for years. If you didn't help build something, you don't have a right to tear it down, 5 minutes after joining (assuming he did join). Personally, I don't want open primaries where others can come in and screw with our nominee. The GOP's primary in California was a closed primary. No one but registered Republicans could vote in it, period. And not one member of my community (a fairly large community North of LA) ever complained, or wrote an Op-Ed piece about it.

[whatthehey]

3. I'm not sure I'd be that absolute

But it's undeniably true Sanders is not handling the end game as well as he did the campaign itself. I don't know whether it's because he sees a greater gain for his goals by holding out or just personal reasons either benign or selfish, but he is starting to resemble a Las Vegas house seller in 2008 at this point, with the hope, however well founded in the past, falling a bit short of the possible.

[CrowCityDem]

5. Bernie has very little leverage at this point.

The polling alone would dictate that, with Trump falling further behind by the day.

More than that, Elizabeth Warren not only gives the progressive credibility Bernie could, but she is out there attacking Trump in a way that I can't imagine Bernie doing. Bernie waited so long that she had enough time to prove herself as the better advocate. What can Bernie do now that Warren can't? I can't think of anything.

[Maru Kitteh]

30. This is undeniable

Whether he would have had more leverage earlier is subject to debate but ultimately moot at this point. That his leverage slips daily, is obvious and absolutely quantifiable.

[lapucelle]

33. Pee standing up?

[DCBob]

6. Pretty much exactly what I predicted several weeks ago..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1881257

[uponit7771]

16. +1

[villager]

8. The question is whether you see support of Clinton as the endgame of his movement

Bernie may view a grassroots network that exists through several election cycles as the longer game.

Which may or may not be a separate issue to how well, or otherwise, he's handling the endgame of this specific election cycle...

[uponit7771]

15. Sanders said the focus is on the POTUS because the POTUS sets the agenda which is a wrong reading

... of how power is distributed in the 3 branches.

A 90% dem house is more powerful than a dem president

[Cha]

9. K&R~Thank you, Don~

[randome]

10. I'm starting to think Sanders has a problem with strong-willed women.

He doesn't appear to like Clinton. He hasn't had anything to say about Warren that I'm aware of, and of all people in Congress, she should be his natural ally.

He supports female legislators but maybe that's because they're underdogs and need his support. I don't know, it's just a theory.

[Armstead]

26. It's not a very good theory

You can do better than that.

It may have escaped your notice that Sanders is married to a very strong willed woman, for example. She is not they type to take any shit, and she seems more than willing to tell him when he's wrong. They seem to get along just fine.

[DLCWIdem]

42. But she did take shit during the primaries. he told her to get off the stage and she did

[Armstead]

45. Oh for Pete's sake....You're recycling that old meme?

Good lord there was some confusion on stage, and he motioned that he was ready to speak. Not worth even mentioning. Have you ever seen couples interact?

Lordy, lordly lordy......

[aikoaiko]

11. I don't think the Washington Post understands what Bernie is trying to do.

Sure, from a conventional point of view Rothenberg may have a point, but Bernie hasn't been and isn't going to be conventional in his interactions with the Democratic party.

[uponit7771]

13. He should be effective, right now he's not... he's a gadfly without the backing he had weeks ago

... before the Sanders supporters started flocking to Clinton in higher numbers than that flocked to Obama in 08

[aikoaiko]

18. Maybe, but I don't recall HRC influencing the party platform after conceding. She took a vacation.

He's not playing the typical game of influence. He's doing something different.

[uponit7771]

21. Cause she knew she had no leverage... Sanders has even less than she did

[aikoaiko]

22. And yet there he is -- influencing.

[uponit7771]

23. Not a positive one ... more negative said about DNC than tRump

[leftofcool]

28. Who is he influencing?

[aikoaiko]

29. the platform committee people he selected and votes on issues

[randome]

17. What do you think Elizabeth Warren is trying to do? And why is she more effective?

[Armstead]

46. I think she's angling to be Veep, and if not, burnish her personal credentials

Her agenda is more personal than Bernie's.

That is NOT a put-down. But she's more in the mold of an ambitious conventional politician than Bernie is.

He's already established who he is -- a professional pain in the ass to the establishment who is fighting for principles and issues....and I say good on him for that.

[uponit7771]

12. +1, Sanders supporters flocking to Hillary faster than Hillary supporters flocked to Obama in 08.

[Armstead]

27. Nope not flocking....Grudgingly marching to the only electable alternative to Trump and the GOP

[bettyellen]

31. This nitpicking is so unbecoming and pointless. Stop fighting the primary, it's over. DONE.

[Armstead]

34. I just don't like mischaracterizations

It is one thing for people to "flock to" a candidate with equal enthusiasm and positive energy. And to accept at face value that all of the issues and differences that were raised in the primary suddenly no longer matter. And by extension "Yeah that was a little bump in the road. Now we can all go on with business as usual."

It's quite another to acknowledge that those differences and issues still exist, and should be honestly dealt with, and not be swept under the rug, and ignored moving to the election and beyond.

[bettyellen]

35. Flock simply means to move as a group- the fact that it sounds positive in no way makes it

Inaccurate. Some people are unhappy, big whoop. This is getting ridiculous.

[Armstead]

36. Yeah it doesn't matter what people think and feel and believe

But I kinda think such things ARE a big whoop.

Otherwise it don't matter who gets elected.

[bettyellen]

39. Using the word flock in no way diminishes Sanders supporters....

Unless you want to criticize people who have decided their vote needs to count in November.
Honestly, I've never seen such blatant and unreasonable distain for Dem voters in my life. You need to get over it and respect that we all have work to do now for November without letting verbs set you off. Priorities.

[Armstead]

47. No, flock implies enthusiasm as in....

Millions of people saying "Oh to hell with that Bernie guy. Now we love Clinton, because she's the greatest candidate ever."

That's not what is happening with his supporters. Its more diverse than that. Some who were evenly split between them all along...Others are more like "Meh. She's okay I guess. At least she isn't Trump."...to "I'll vote for her to Stop Trump. But I'll have a clothespin in my nose."

The reason it matters (aside from the fact that that particular poster has been saying the same things numerous times), is that it dismisses what Sanders has been fighting for, and it dismisses the reasons his supporters supported him. Those reasons are not inconsequential, and should be not left behind as political roadkill.

[bettyellen]

48. Birdies do what they I need to do to survive- so flock is very appropriate- considering the mass of

Voters- 80%- who have moved on because it is the season to. Few works could be more appropriate than flock, when you think about it. Likely most of the remaining 20% were never Dems anyway.

[uponit7771]

32. That's not what the poll numbers and time span indicate, only 8% holdovers for HRC vs 40% for Obama

[MohRokTah]

14. Anybody left from the Sanders camp who is not supporting the nominee....

will never support the nominee. Pivot right, pick up more reliable voters from the center and the disaffected anti-Trump Republicans. It's an easier fight for their votes than to try to obtain any more former Sanders supporters.

Sanders has made himself and his "revolution" politically irrelevant.

I suspect his role in the Senate next year will become extremely minor as more junior Democratic Senators have proved loyalty to the party and there will be a Democratic majority regardless of what the junior Senator from Vermont wishes to do with his remaining time in that body.

[Lord Magus]

20. Calling for "revolution" in the first place was a miscalculation.

After 8 years of a popular Democratic president, telling Democratic voters that everything needs to be changed in a revolutionary way was not a good strategy. It's the kind of thing that could've played well in 08, coming off the 8 disastrous years of Bush's reign of error, but after the Obama presidency most on the left think that things are progressing fairly well only a few course corrections are needed, not a complete reinvention of the party.

[bettyellen]

40. It's a wonder Sanders never pressed for this revolution the past eight years....

Really interesting!

[Armstead]

24. Yeah that conventional wisdom -- If Bernie followed that he'd never have even run

It would have been O'Malley as a token opponent, and then Full Spectrum Dominance by the Conservative Centrist Wing with no need to "address the left."

Just a nice smooth campaign of vanilla pudding.

Bernie upset the apple cart by actually raising important issues, and demonstrating that there is a massive constituency for liberal.progressive positions and messages.

Now the conveyors of conventional wisdom want their vanilla pudding back -- and they want it now.

Too bad Bernie isn't serving it up to them in bland, easily digestible form.

[Lord Magus]

41. Running an "unconventional" campaign wasn't exactly a winner for Bernie.

More focus on "conventional wisdom" stuff like the ground game instead of having so many of the stadium-filling rallies (which consumed a lot of money) might've made it a closer race.

And how exactly does that "conservative centrist" line not constitute bashing the Democratic nominee?

[Cali_Democrat]

38. Excellent article

Spot on.

[PowerToThePeople]

44. Shrug

I guess he doesn't want to ride those coattails. He will do fine without them.