Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
Showing Original Post only (View all)Why Bernie Sanders has absolutely nothing to lose by staying in the presidential race [View all]
Source: The Washington Post | The Fix
To those grumblers I would say two things: (1) It makes no sense for Sanders to get out of the race right now, and (2) You have no way of getting him out anyway.
Remember that most politicians drop out of races because they run out of money and/or they are looking to their political future and want to make sure they leave a good impression with party leaders. "He ran a good race and got out when he should have," is the sort of approving sentiment I've had expressed to me myriad times by members of both parties' political establishment over the years about a rising star pol.
Here's the thing with Sanders: He's never been a Democrat before. Yes, he caucuses with Democrats in the Senate. Yes, he ran (and is running) for president as a Democrat. But, Sanders isn't someone who has ever been part of the Democratic party apparatus. He's not someone who is terribly worried about what the party could (or would) do to him if he stays in the presidential race longer than "they" see fit. And, at 74, it's very unlikely Sanders has an eye on 2020 or 2024 to make a repeat run for president.
In short, none of the levers that the party typically pushes to get unwanted candidates out of races works on Sanders. Can you imagine if in a closely divided Senate in 2017, Majority Leader/Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said that Sanders couldn't caucus with Democrats anymore because he didn't endorse Clinton at the right time? No, you can't imagine it because it would literally never happen. Or how about if Schumer stripped Sanders of his committee assignments or even pushed him off one of the marquee committees on which he currently sits? Sanders and the millions of people who support him would instantly go bananas. And, because of Sanders's national profile, it would be a huge national story.
Less talked about, but no less important is the fact that the Justice Department is still investigating Clinton's decision to use a private email server to exclusively handle her electronic communication during her time as secretary of state. While the expectation has been for months that an announcement of the investigation's finding was coming within days, no word has come yet.
If you are Sanders and you know there's not a whole hell of a lot that the Democratic Party can do to actually hurt you why not stay in the race for a while longer just in case the FBI either indicts Clinton or severely reprimands her? Neither seems likely. (Note: I am not a lawyer!) But, if you have been actively running for president for much of the past 18 months, why would you end your candidacy now with an investigation involving your opponent still ongoing?
Remember that most politicians drop out of races because they run out of money and/or they are looking to their political future and want to make sure they leave a good impression with party leaders. "He ran a good race and got out when he should have," is the sort of approving sentiment I've had expressed to me myriad times by members of both parties' political establishment over the years about a rising star pol.
Here's the thing with Sanders: He's never been a Democrat before. Yes, he caucuses with Democrats in the Senate. Yes, he ran (and is running) for president as a Democrat. But, Sanders isn't someone who has ever been part of the Democratic party apparatus. He's not someone who is terribly worried about what the party could (or would) do to him if he stays in the presidential race longer than "they" see fit. And, at 74, it's very unlikely Sanders has an eye on 2020 or 2024 to make a repeat run for president.
In short, none of the levers that the party typically pushes to get unwanted candidates out of races works on Sanders. Can you imagine if in a closely divided Senate in 2017, Majority Leader/Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said that Sanders couldn't caucus with Democrats anymore because he didn't endorse Clinton at the right time? No, you can't imagine it because it would literally never happen. Or how about if Schumer stripped Sanders of his committee assignments or even pushed him off one of the marquee committees on which he currently sits? Sanders and the millions of people who support him would instantly go bananas. And, because of Sanders's national profile, it would be a huge national story.
Less talked about, but no less important is the fact that the Justice Department is still investigating Clinton's decision to use a private email server to exclusively handle her electronic communication during her time as secretary of state. While the expectation has been for months that an announcement of the investigation's finding was coming within days, no word has come yet.
If you are Sanders and you know there's not a whole hell of a lot that the Democratic Party can do to actually hurt you why not stay in the race for a while longer just in case the FBI either indicts Clinton or severely reprimands her? Neither seems likely. (Note: I am not a lawyer!) But, if you have been actively running for president for much of the past 18 months, why would you end your candidacy now with an investigation involving your opponent still ongoing?
Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/17/why-bernie-sanders-has-absolutely-nothing-to-lose-by-staying-in-the-presidential-race/
30 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Why Bernie Sanders has absolutely nothing to lose by staying in the presidential race [View all]
w4rma
Jun 2016
OP
Spoken like a true neoliberal who wants to marginalize progressives as much as possible. (nt)
w4rma
Jun 2016
#6
Oh puh-leeze, cut the crap. You people have a persecution complex down cold n/t
SFnomad
Jun 2016
#12
My interpretation of the poster's words are accurate. And the poster didn't disagree. (nt)
w4rma
Jun 2016
#16
I don't think you know what the meaning of "meaningless" is, nor "non-sequitur". (nt)
w4rma
Jun 2016
#21
Right. But the DNC better not accept his "representatives" to the platform convention
question everything
Jun 2016
#19
If he's waiting around 'just in case', why doesn't he just suspend...then he can always reenter if
eastwestdem
Jun 2016
#3
Does he mention anywhere that he wants them to run as Dems or get involved in Dem organizing?
ucrdem
Jun 2016
#20
It depends on whether you think Clinton would make a better president than Trump.
Donald Ian Rankin
Jun 2016
#25
I think that depends on how the negotiations turn out. Hopefully, Hillary doesn't dig in like many
w4rma
Jun 2016
#27