2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumBernie Sanders’ Endgame Is Increasingly Bewildering To Team Clinton
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-convention_us_5773f0f4e4b0352fed3e97f7But as time has passed and the partys convention nears, supporters of Hillary Clinton really want to know what Sanders endgame actually is.
The question has been prompted by some recent muddled messaging from Sanders himself. The senator has said hell vote for Clinton, but is declining to actually endorse her candidacy. On Tuesday, he raised the specter of convention disorder over the nuts and bolts of the party platform, all while insisting he will do everything in his power to ensure that presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump loses.
So far [Sanders] has been riding a wave of good feelings in the sense he ran an incredible campaign, said former Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), who served with Sanders and Clinton but has endorsed the latter.
Sanders campaign did not return requests for comment. But those who know the senator say that the simplest explanation for his current pursuits is, in his typical fashion, the right one: He wants to change the Democratic Party, from the way it nominates its candidates to the policies it pursues.
Bernie is trying to do exactly what he says he is trying to do. Its in every one of his statements. He is making sure the concerns he has raised are taken into account for the future of the Democratic Party, said former Sen. Ted Kaufman (D-Del.), who worked with Sanders for a short period of time.
The easiest answer with Bernie is to listen what he says because what he says is what he means, he added. It is remarkable working with him. You didnt have to spend a lot of time figuring out what he was saying or what he meant. It was a pleasure being around him.
And Sanders has been around. Since voting in the Democratic primary concluded, he hasnt receded far from the spotlight. The stadium-sized rallies are over, but he has campaigned for like-minded progressives, sent fundraising emails to elect allies, pushed for platform changes through his delegates and, lately, has taken to the op-ed pages of the major newspapers
Go Bernie! Much love from a proud supporter from the beginning till the end! Do not let the hatred from some people deter you in your goals for reforms.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)GeorgiaPeanuts
(2,353 posts)Supporting the TPP tells me all I need to know about you.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Response to MohRokTah (Reply #5)
Post removed
Response to MohRokTah (Reply #5)
Post removed
840high
(17,196 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)GeorgiaPeanuts
(2,353 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)80 percent of his support has already moved over to Hillary. Much faster than her 08 support moved to Obama. We have EDUB. That's much much much better.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)still_one
(92,058 posts)Deal with it
eShirl
(18,477 posts)why is everyone so impatient?
uponit7771
(90,301 posts)... his left leaning bonafides have been "trumped" by Warren (who most of the left pined for at first) ... none of the delegates are going to move over to him either.
His endgame is petulance right now, he'll get a couple of nods but he'll keep asking then get nothing
GeorgiaPeanuts
(2,353 posts)He has gained +12 net favorability in the newest YouGov poll... http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/polls/yougov-economist-24795 (Hillary only gained +1) (Trump lost 7 favorability)
Clearly he isn't doing anything wrong in the eyes of the American public at large. That his supporters are willing to vote for Clinton might say more about his strategy than the bleating on about why he hasn't endorsed yet. Bernie is authentic.
uponit7771
(90,301 posts)... she doesn't need his endorsement seeing his supporters have already flocked to her fast relative to 08... when Obama won.
No delegates are going to move for him and he has raised little cash down ballot...
Relative to Clinton in 08 he doesn't have any leverage
GeorgiaPeanuts
(2,353 posts)How many down ballot candidates have received money from the Hillary Victory Fund yet?
uponit7771
(90,301 posts)... giving him down ballots at that number which relatively is paltry
GeorgiaPeanuts
(2,353 posts)has received money from Hillary Victory Fund?
charlyvi
(6,537 posts)In his statement announcing his latest financial triumph, Sanders emphasized details he has every reason to be proud of: his campaign has now received over 6.5 million contributions from 1.7 million individual Americans, with an average contribution of just $27. The senators email to supporters referenced the potency of his revolution three times.
Yesterday afternoon, meanwhile, Hillary Clintons campaign announced its fundraising tally over the same period, and though Sanders hasnt matched his rival in votes or wins, we were reminded once more that hes easily defeating her when it comes to dollars in the bank. But the Clinton campaigns press release added something Sanders did not:
Hillary Clinton raised about $29.5 million for her primary campaign during March. That amount brings the first quarter total to nearly $75 million raised for the primary, beating the campaigns goal of $50 million by about 50 percent. [Hillary For America] begins April with nearly $29 million on hand.
Clinton raised an additional $6.1 million for the DNC and state parties during the month of March, bringing the total for the quarter to about $15 million [emphasis added].
The first part matters, of course, to the extent that Sanders fundraising juggernaut is eclipsing Clintons operation, but its the second part that stands out. How much money did Sanders raise for the DNC and state parties in March? Actually, zero. For the quarter, the total was also zero.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/clinton-sanders-differ-down-ballot-democrats
GeorgiaPeanuts
(2,353 posts)Remember when Sanders threatened a lawsuit over it. Because in essence that money was going to soliciting for donations on behalf of the Clinton Campaign using a loophole.
I am specifically looking for any instance where a downballot Democratic candidate received money from actions undertaken by Clinton campaign.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)why would you raise money for them?
Sanders raises money directly for candidates that share his vision.
I wouldn't give money to the DNC or CTDems either...they'd probably use it to run more Democrats that I really don't think are good Democrats at-all. The best way for any movement working for reform the party is to work to gut the establishment and its institutions so they may be reformed or replaced. Sanders fundraising for the DNC would be counter-productive to what we're actually attempting to do.
Rebuilding requires demolition. Do you invest time and resources into renovating a house you're trying to knock down so you can rebuild on the lot?
unc70
(6,109 posts)Some of us have donated directly to other candidates after receiving a mailing from Sanders. How could you even presume to know what we might have done and will continue to do? By being overly presumptive, I suppose. Why not; it works for so many others.
merrily
(45,251 posts)floriduck
(2,262 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)This is from your source:
Sanders leverage seems limited in other ways as well. The portion of the liberal base that is withholding its support for Clinton has decreased in recent polls. Thats been aided in part by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) endorsing the former secretary of state although the Clinton camp believes that 10 percent to 15 percent of Sanders supporters were never Democrats to begin with and wont vote for Clinton simply because other progressives are on board.
Many of Sanders prominent endorsers have switched their support to Clinton as well. And according to Democratic sources, the Clinton campaign has been working behind the scenes to try to limit the prospects of convention chaos: Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook has spoken repeatedly with Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver, in addition to meeting with Sanders delegates in Vermont in an attempt to earn their support.
Rendell, who is chairing the convention, said he has also been working with the Sanders campaign to ensure that it has access for a march through the city and a convenient spot to host a rally and demonstration. But even then, he wasnt optimistic that the party was gearing up for a serene week.
My guess is it wont be totally peaceful, Rendell said. But it will be more peaceful than (the Republican convention in) Cleveland. Total low bar, I know.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-convention_us_5773f0f4e4b0352fed3e97f7
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)The people in that group would have never voted for Hillary anyway.
Zen Democrat
(5,901 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)I was on Team Clinton in 2008, and it wasn't easy making the switch. That said, the thought of Caribou Barbie a heartbeat away from the White House was more than enough to finally persuade me to get my ass Fired Up and Ready To Go!
I will say I went from reluctant supporter to "enthusiast" in very short order -- what made me really understand how important the Obama Presidency was, was the Inauguration Ceremony. It's a pretty powerful thing when people in your own family are shedding tears of joy and unable to speak over some guy taking the oath of office. President Obama was a visual representation of opportunity for those of us who don't look like we came out of 1950s-era central casting; and he turned out to be a really good POTUS, too.
When HRC was named SECSTATE I said to myself, "Hmmm--what a 'She stoops to conquer' moment!" Because holding that job would make her--no doubt, no question, no reservations--the most qualified individual to run for public office when the job became available in future. Between the legislative experience in the Senate and that gig on the world stage, and of course, sitting in a catbird seat seeing how the process works in the WH for eight years, there's no one who can hit the ground faster than she can. She doesn't have to ask "Where's the bathroom?" or "Which one is the Map Room?" She knows her way around and she knows how the game is played.
I just can't imagine The Donald soiling the WH with his tiny orange hands. It's simply too ugly an idea to contemplate!
Her Sister
(6,444 posts)NastyRiffraff
(12,448 posts)You're sane. You don't have to "love" Hillary; just vote. Think of it as a vote AGAINST Trump if you like, it still counts as a vote for a Democratic president. Love Bernie all you like; I certainly don't and that's fine, too. We're Democrats;; we know a Trump presidency would be disastrous for the country.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)Adrahil
(13,340 posts)He could have been, but he misplayed his hand.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)If I consider someone irrelevant, I never think about them.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)All this talk of democracy and the will of the people, and he can't acknowledge that he lost. Seems kind of petty to many. I think he squandered an opportunity to be a real leader in the Democratic party, but his choice. At this point, I don't really care. I hope he recoups some dignity and returns to doing good work in the Senate.
Zen Democrat
(5,901 posts)It will be working for Progressive wins during all of the Hillary Administration. And beyond. This was about way more than the nomination. Bernie has said that from the beginning. It's never been about HIM.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)Instead he's continuing to press for what he pressed for in the primary (and for years before that).
Sorrrreeeee he has not decided to do the "let's sweep everything under the carpet" thing for y'all.
He's going to continue to be a pain in the ass of the conservative centrists, and I am glad for that. We need more pains in the ass.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)He could emphasize that he has great respect for Clinton and that he endorses her, but that they don;t agree on everything, and that he will advise her on issues and point our to her when he thinks she's wrong.
Endorsing does NOT mean having to become a sychophant.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)He was maybe a little more relaxed last night, but not saying much different than he's been saying for weeks.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)It's interesting to try and figure him out ... kinda like watching a train wreck in slow motion, you just can't look away in spite of yourself ... there's a certain element of being odd and quirky entertainment ... but that hardly makes him politically relevant any more.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)That shit is juicer than most of the RT and Brienart crap posted here for the last six months. Implosions are inherantly interesting!
Armstead
(47,803 posts)He got into the race to advance issues he (and millions of otehrs) believe need to be addressed. He lost the nomination, but he didn't lose those principles.
He's going to keep pressing for those issues. He's a royal pain in the ass to the establishment, and I'm glad he is. We need more pains in the ass.
840high
(17,196 posts)Proud Public Servant
(2,097 posts)That's not to put down Bernie. But it's obvious that Clinton and Sanders aren't even playing the same game at this point, if they ever were. Clinton needs to get on with winning the general, Sanders needs to get on with building his movement. At this point, neither one significantly helps the other; Clinton has all the ex-Bernie-supporter votes she needs (or is likely to get), even without his endorsement, and Sanders' long-term goals actually benefit from lack of contact with Clinton. Give him an appropriate speaking spot at the convention and let everyone move on.
My chief concern is that, if Bernie doesn't play this right, he'll find his influence much-diminished inside the Beltway, even as his stature grows beyond it. The Clintons know how to hold a grudge, and whoever the next Dem Senate leader is will likely either be a Clintonite or be unwilling to cross her. Bernie may not care, but I'd hate to see him frozen out.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Candidates get no speaking slot before the nomination vote and after, only the nominee and those who endorse get speaking slots.
So Sander gets nothing because he refuses to concede and endorse,
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)I don't know him, I don't hate him. I just don't care.
ret5hd
(20,480 posts)Just sayin'.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)unions (not the management) folks who can not compete with the massive influx of corporate cash.
He did not covet the job of presidency. He was a reluctant candidate with a message. If he chooses to participate in a portion of the Democratic Party that is not associated with neoliberalism, then he is doing what he said. Obviously, who one votes for this November is only one event of the story.
It's not just about one election or one candidate and winning or losing. Movements or Revolutions...call it what you will...are not unipolar. It now most likely will move to the bottom up...an eager, underserved potential candidate segment that doesn't have to get someone's OK to run. There is now a national leader, which The People have not have for a very long time.
Time will tell, but I think the angst of Bernie still being around and not tied to Hillary's hip will go away at some point before Bernie goes away. At least I hope so.
Response to libdem4life (Reply #28)
rjsquirrel This message was self-deleted by its author.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I remember him saying he would do everything in his power to stop Trump from becoming president. I believed him. I was wrong.
tonyt53
(5,737 posts)I don't hate Sanders, not even remotely. In fact, I feel sorry for him.
Evergreen Emerald
(13,069 posts)What is he doing? Is he a democrat? is he an independent? Which is it? Why does he care about the democratic party if he has decided to run as an independent?
MelissaB
(16,420 posts)Posters have left and the Alexa rank continues to drop.
Response to MelissaB (Reply #41)
rjsquirrel This message was self-deleted by its author.
corkhead
(6,119 posts)demwing
(16,916 posts)The only people who are "bewildered" are those that are also bewildered by the concept of navigating with a compass, instead of just following any breeze that blows.
Response to demwing (Reply #45)
Post removed
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)silvershadow
(10,336 posts)Uncle Joe
(58,265 posts)Thanks for the thread, GeorgiaPeanuts.
Night Watchman
(743 posts)I mean: He lost. Simple.
whistler162
(11,155 posts)eridani
(51,907 posts)--Trump is he does NOT endorse her.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)A Sanders endorsement for Clinton probably gains no votes for Clinton at this juncture...but it almost certainly moves some of his primary supporter's GE votes from Stein to Trump as they will see it as him selling out the revolution to make nice with Hillary Clinton, someone many of those holdouts view as a cross between Salome and Cersei Lannister.
I don't get what is bewildering about that. He's doing exactly what he said he was going to do:
1.) Continue the revolution.
2.) Work against Trump getting elected.
3.) Vote for Clinton in November.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)Bernie still has yet to even concede that he lost. Or to congratulate Hillary on her historic victory. And maintaining a zombie campaign under the pretense of still being an active candidate just makes him look ridiculous.
.
whistler162
(11,155 posts)team is clueless and is growing more so as time passes! Hmmmmmm.... not good.
Jitter65
(3,089 posts)And he loses either way.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)Not anybody sane at-least.
What part of this is hard for Clinton supporters to understand? It's not about your candidate, it never was. This campaign was always about reformation of the party...it still is. The endgame is to not have an endgame until we succeed in reforming the party, whether that takes one election cycle or twenty. We're not going away...we'll be here still in 2020 to push for a primary candidacy and work to move the party in a more-progressive direction. We'll be here in 2018 and 2022 to get progressives onto the ballot and replace centrist Democrats with progressives everywhere progressives can win.
None of that revolves around Clinton. Frankly, as far as our objectives go, nobody gives a F about Clinton. She's not relevant to the revolution; no more so than dinosaurs are.
We lost the nomination. We're still winning the war. Who concedes when they're winning the war?
randome
(34,845 posts)Antagonism and trash-talking the Democratic Party only makes it less likely to get positions aired. The longer Sanders waits, the less influence he has so if this was a war, he's not winning it.
brooklynite
(94,294 posts)Explain how you propose to do that.
Sanders let the nomination; therefore his movement can;t do it by dint of numbers. It has to be done in a cooperative rather than confrontational manner, and stubborn refusal to acknowledge defeat and unify the Party around it's nominee won't put the Clinton campaign or the Party in a mood to consider his "demands".
Chan790
(20,176 posts)We're not going away and we're never compromising with the center-left again because they don't keep their promises and we always get the short end of the stick. What y'all do with that is up to you.
Lyric
(12,675 posts)Reeeeeeally the wrong word.
If Hillary had behaved like this back in 2008, I wouldn't be supporting her today. Selfishness and egotism are repulsive qualities.
Thankfully she was a gracious loser. SOME people could learn lesson, but that would require acknowledging that Hillary Clinton isn't Satan Incarnate. So I doubt if we will see that any time soon.
Jesus, even the Repukes behaved with more grace and dignity than this, and THEY lost to a blathering ferret-headed shitgibbon. Did I get that right???
Her Sister
(6,444 posts)eom
Koinos
(2,792 posts)I think that Bernie wants to continue to be a "gadfly" for Democrats.
I think he sees his role as that of ongoing "critic" and "protestor."
But showing appreciation of what Hillary Clinton and other Democrats have done would situate his criticisms within a broader context of friendly cooperation.
People tend to pay more attention to criticism from well-meaning friends.
stonecutter357
(12,693 posts)Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)I have seen plenty of examples where what he said was off, wrong, scary, demeaning etc and it was explained away in a completely different manner by BS supporters here on DU. We are supposed to decide and decipher when that one line applies and when it does not? I'm not a mind reader, and neither is anyone else attempting to interpret what he means.