Sanders Campaign staying in til DC

[RaphaelDLG]

Ironic how the same people whining about party unity are the ones who are calling Sanders a 'pathetic slime'. I doubt that'd do much for party unity, now, would it?

Sen Smith FF

[RaphaelDLG]

Some of the people in this thread need to be tested for rabies.

[RaphaelDLG]

^ except his message is principally about the corrupt nature of the campaign finance/lobbying system in this country, which happens to be a message that desperately needs to be aired and is based in truth, so the speeches were a totally legitimate point.  People need to expect better of the Democratic party and work to make it better than is, not paper over/deny deep problems.  HRC was never going to seriously address what is fundamental issue in American politics and often a proximate cause of bad policy, certainly not if she wasn't pushed.

Now, maybe you can say that the way that Sanders framed the speeches and the way that he singled out Clinton was poor, as she is hardly the only Democrat, let alone the only politician, that partakes in this sad process.  Hillary is not a bad or unusually corrupt person, she's swimming in the same soup that everyone else swims in.  Her problem is that she doesn't see it as a big issue, not that she partakes in something that is partially inevitable for now.

Also, as has been discussed ad nauseum on here, Sanders never accused the elections process of being "rigged," and indeed backed away from calling the blatantly rigged debate process as so, and recently responded to Trump's accusations on TV saying that the primary was not in fact rigged, just not open enough.

The people that are saying that are the segment of his supporters that see conspiracies in everything like they are the ancient aliens guy - such illogical people are overrepresented in the Sanders community online, but 1) there are supporters of every candidate from this crazy demographic and 2) they would be saying this kind of stuff regardless of what Sanders is supposedly saying to egg them on and 3) for the few people that actually interact with this crazy crowd, this is not really changing anybody's mind about Hillary Clinton who didn't already hold a negative opinion.

[RaphaelDLG]

I agree that if Sanders does stay in through the convention, he's overstayed his welcome to say the least. He should concede after California or D.C. However, I am tired of the man and all of his supporters being grouped with his most obnoxious ones. Some Sanders supporters are going to level unfair criticism of Clinton, and that's not right. However, this doesn't justify unleashing unfair criticism of Sanders, or holding him personally accountable for everything each one of his supporters say.

Quite a few people are sore losers, and don't react well at all to their candidate losing. There were Clinton supporters in '08 who were like that and then some. Was Hillary personally to blame for their actions? Should we have blamed PUMA on her? Some people would, no doubt. But I hardly think that's fair, and the same applies to blaming Bernie for what some loonies who happen to support him might say.

I agree up to a point. Hillary's message at the end was more about allowing her voters the chance to be heard, something Sanders is talking about too. BUT, Clinton was not still talking about winning the nomination, and was not openly challenge the legitimacy of the process, which Sanders and his campaign have done.

I can agree with you that while I hate superdelegates, closed primaries, and the debate schedule, some of sanders' language and of course Jeff Weaver's is making me uncomfortable.  This BETTER be the insincere attempt to gain platform negotiation leverage that it seems to me to be.

[RaphaelDLG]

When do losers in a race get to overrun the party?

What does 'taking his message seriously' and changing the party' mean? In concrete terms?

He doesn't have the right to demand the party change or adhere to his message. He has the right to be part of the conversation to advocate for it. Which is a lot more positive in the long-run.

What's the difference?

[RaphaelDLG]

Once again, I'm shocked, shocked to find hardball politics going on in this Presidential race!

If you're not gonna take his message seriously, he's not gonna shut up.

If you don't change the party, he's not gonna shut up.

Because guess what? He wants his message taken seriously, and he wants the party to change.

Now are y'all establishment folks gonna do what's necessary for party unity, or are you going to throw the election to Trump?

I think they are taking the message as seriously as they can.

Which is why we're getting "Oh that awful, nasty Bernie Sanders?" Which is why we're getting Hickenlooper on national TV defending Superdels? Which is why we have the President giving national interviews saying he 'has the back' of someone that defends payday lenders?

Either crush him or concede (which, given he has around 45% of the party with him, I'd advise). But don't run around handwringing blaming the situation on him.

Hillary has beat him in the popular vote, the delegate vote, and the superdelegate vote. How does Bernie have a leg to stand on?

He doesn't have a leg to stand on that the should be the nominee, barring some unforeseen act of God, but he does have a gigantic leg to stand on vis a vis his policy positions being incorporated and considered very seriously by her campaign as she goes into the GE and beyond

[RaphaelDLG]

When do losers in a race get to overrun the party?

What does 'taking his message seriously' and changing the party' mean? In concrete terms?

He doesn't have the right to demand the party change or adhere to his message. He has the right to be part of the conversation to advocate for it. Which is a lot more positive in the long-run.

What's the difference?

It's kind of everything, it's about tactic, tone and subtlety. You can use the DNC as a platform to positively advocate your message, as opposed to a negative and angry tone. I would love to see how the Sanders people who were behind Obama in 08 would have reacted to Clinton demanding massive concessions and having the right to demand "whatever she wants"

Probably like hypocrites.

 I don't really think tone should matter.  What matters is is the criticism legitimate and fair.  Obviously, the DNC is in no way morally close to this situation, so don't read too much into this comparison, but should MLK have adjusted his "tone?"

[RaphaelDLG]

Where is the report that she demanded SoS? Everything I've read suggests she had to have to her arm twisted. The Obama people didn't pay off her debts.

But we agree on the whole "it's politics" stuff, so we'll let it go.

When do losers in a race get to overrun the party?

What does 'taking his message seriously' and changing the party' mean? In concrete terms?

He doesn't have the right to demand the party change or adhere to his message. He has the right to be part of the conversation to advocate for it. Which is a lot more positive in the long-run.

What's the difference?

It's kind of everything, it's about tactic, tone and subtlety. You can use the DNC as a platform to positively advocate your message, as opposed to a negative and angry tone. I would love to see how the Sanders people who were behind Obama in 08 would have reacted to Clinton demanding massive concessions and having the right to demand "whatever she wants"

Probably like hypocrites.

 I don't really think tone should matter.  What matters is is the criticism legitimate and fair.  Obviously, the DNC is in no way morally close to this situation, so don't read too much into this comparison, but should MLK have adjusted his "tone?"

Really?

Yes, tone matters. He can be strong and determined, but cannot do it at the detriment of Clinton at her nominating convention.

Yeah, I guess I partially agree with you that he has to be as strong as possible while still making it very clear to his thicker supporters that they still need to put on their big boy pants in November and vote against Trump/doing so is absolutely critical.  It's a very tough gauntlet to run.