"So what?" says Sanders, on if his supporters make the convention "messy"

[Blue3]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/sanders-democratic-convention-could-messy-230537903--election.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

'Open the doors, let chaos reign' is supposed to actually persuade the Dem establishment into doing it?

Does he really wonder why the same people aren't supporting him?

He would have been so horrible working with Congress if he did become President, even a Democratic-majority Congress.

I understand the need for debate... but the main debate was the primaries. Hillary got millions of more votes. The people have spoken.

[President of the great nation of 🏳️‍⚧️]

I agree with the man's policies, but I say he should drop out when Hillary clinches the nod in June.

[Figueira]

I agree with the man's policies, but I say he should drop out when Hillary clinches the nod in June.

I have to agree. I think he'll probably get the memo once his support fizzles out after California. I certainly won't count myself as a supporter of his campaign post-June 14*.

*He'll almost certainly be locked out on June 7, but staying in until after DC votes sounds like a nice enough thing to do.

[dax00]

Change doesn't happen unless things get messy.

[Eraserhead]

Democracy should be messy.

[RaphaelDLG]

I think primary season and the convention is the time in the American political calendar to get extremely messy, and the Democratic party deserves a messy convention with its horrible behavior over the past few decades.

Then, though, Sanders and his supporters need to be grown-ups and come together to stop Trump and win a Democratic Senate.  Based on leaked overtures from Sanders and some reciprocation from the Clinton camp, I'm very confident Sanders at least, as well as 75%+ of his supporters, will do that.

This constant media pressure for Sanders to drop out 1) greatly exaggerates both the extent to which sanders is attacking clinton and the extent to which those attacks are fatally damaging her 2) is often being orchestrated by a media with long term ties to the Clintons and 3) is being drummed up in an attempt to have a story in a boring, already finished Democratic primary.

[Virginiá]

Translation: Democracy is supposed to be messy when I aim to blackmail my way to the nomination.

Great strategy here - When a majority of the voters choose someone else, just kick and scream until you get your way and overturn the voters choice.

[Figueira]

Translation: Democracy is supposed to be messy when I aim to blackmail my way to the nomination.

Great strategy here - When a majority of the voters choose someone else, just kick and scream until you get your way and overturn the voters choice.

I mean, if he's just trying to influence the platform, that's fine. But he shouldn't attempt to actually win the nomination at this point, outside of trying to get every single person in California, New Jersey, etc., to vote for him.

[RaphaelDLG]

Translation: Democracy is supposed to be messy when I aim to blackmail my way to the nomination.

Great strategy here - When a majority of the voters choose someone else, just kick and scream until you get your way and overturn the voters choice.

I don't think that's a very fair reading of Sanders' words as quoted in the AP article at all.  

He says that it is "imperative" that he first wins California by a wide margin of victory, and then after then the super delegates "may rethink" and that at least you "let the process play out," which isn't the most unreasonable statement in the history of the world and not tantamount to blackmail.

Taken in the context of numerous leaks in bloomberg and other outlets that Sanders has been reaching out to reassure Democrats that he is committed to taking on Trump in the fall when he loses, and the fact that Sanders has mostly including right now reportedly not seriously thought that he had a chance in this campaign and is running to advance his ideas and get media attention for progressive views that have been trampled by the democratic and media establishment, this is just an obvious stalling tactic to keep his supporters voting so he can continue to air progressive ideas even though he knows he's not going to be the nominee at this point.

In fact, most of what he talks about in article and the only thing that he actually says should be "messy" is the fight over the platform.  How is wanting a vigorous, non-violent debate over policy issues that includes unrepresented voices undemocratic blackmail?

He's trying to apply pressure to get the Democratic party to do what's right.  You're allowed to disagree with his views and want him to fail.  I say, "good for him!"

The headline of this article and the headlines on outlets like Politico, WaPo, etc and the posts on this site in general reflects this bogus media/HRC camp pressure for Sanders to drop out because he's irreparably damaging Clinton for November, a fallacious assertion.

[Virginiá]

Taken in the context of numerous leaks in bloomberg and other outlets that Sanders has been reaching out to reassure Democrats that he is committed to taking on Trump in the fall when he loses, and the fact that Sanders has mostly including right now reportedly not seriously thought that he had a chance in this campaign and is running to advance his ideas and get media attention for progressive views that have been trampled by the democratic and media establishment, this is just an obvious stalling tactic to keep his supporters voting so he can continue to air progressive ideas even though he knows he's not going to be the nominee at this point.

In regards to the situation in general, he may drop out or decide not to make a mess of things, but I don't know how I can rest easy on such a thought given his current actions. His campaign has certainly made it clear that he intends to try to flip superdelegates to win (thus overturning the will of the voters, and shameful/hypocritical of him based on the campaign he has run so far). Maybe he doesn't intend to, but he sure as hell is acting like he does. In regards to the platform - I'm finding it hard to gauge just how much he expects to get before he says "ok, we're good". He didn't/isn't going to win the nomination, yet he expects more influence than he really deserves. He has helped turn some of his supporters against the party - a party he purposefully stayed out of until he needed something from them - just because he doesn't like the way things are going. Helping enable his supporter's wild accusations of election fraud and corruption is serious and it is not at all like some generic policy disagreement. Convincing people that the Democratic party is rigging elections could really do long-term harm in regards to party loyalty among some of these people. Why do this? What does it get him? How stupid and reckless is he to let these damaging beliefs spread among his base?

But of course my post was a snide comment meant more as an insult but still rooted in my perception of his actions. It pisses me off because last summer I was an enthusiastic Bernie supporter for a few months, and I still like him in many regards, but I'm genuinely upset that one of only 2 politicians I've ever truly admired is now acting like a spoiled child, helping further conspiracies of election fraud and blackmailing his supposed party just because he wants it all. I am a loyal Democrat and I do not appreciate at all what he is doing.

So I'll probably continue to make such insults until he drops this whiny child act.

[Maxwell]

Democracy should be messy.

A double digit popular vote margin should be very clean.

[RaphaelDLG]

Taken in the context of numerous leaks in bloomberg and other outlets that Sanders has been reaching out to reassure Democrats that he is committed to taking on Trump in the fall when he loses, and the fact that Sanders has mostly including right now reportedly not seriously thought that he had a chance in this campaign and is running to advance his ideas and get media attention for progressive views that have been trampled by the democratic and media establishment, this is just an obvious stalling tactic to keep his supporters voting so he can continue to air progressive ideas even though he knows he's not going to be the nominee at this point.

In regards to the situation in general, he may drop out or decide not to make a mess of things, but I don't know how I can rest easy on such a thought given his current actions. His campaign has certainly made it clear that he intends to try to flip superdelegates to win (thus overturning the will of the voters, and shameful/hypocritical of him based on the campaign he has run so far). Maybe he doesn't intend to, but he sure as hell is acting like he does. In regards to the platform - I'm finding it hard to gauge just how much he expects to get before he says "ok, we're good". He didn't/isn't going to win the nomination, yet he expects more influence than he really deserves. He has helped turn some of his supporters against the party - a party he purposefully stayed out of until he needed something from them - just because he doesn't like the way things are going. Helping enable his supporter's wild accusations of election fraud and corruption is serious and it is not at all like some generic policy disagreement. Convincing people that the Democratic party is rigging elections could really do long-term harm in regards to party loyalty among some of these people. Why do this? What does it get him? How stupid and reckless is he to let these damaging beliefs spread among his base?

But of course my post was a snide comment meant more as an insult but still rooted in my perception of his actions. It pisses me off because last summer I was an enthusiastic Bernie supporter for a few months, and I still like him in many regards, but I'm genuinely upset that one of only 2 politicians I've ever truly admired is now acting like a spoiled child, helping further conspiracies of election fraud and blackmailing his supposed party just because he wants it all. I am a loyal Democrat and I do not appreciate at all what he is doing.

So I'll probably continue to make such insults until he drops this whiny child act.

1) When has Sanders accused elections of being "rigged?"  The only item I can find on google of him referring to something as "rigged" are national convention committee procedures, which are pretty objectively rigged.  He even backed off on cable TV as to go as far as Martin O'Malley to say that the debate schedule was "rigged" for Hillary, even though it obviously was.

He's criticized registration processes in closed states and poorly administered primaries/caucuses of being disenfranchising, which is a totally fair, legitimate criticism - just like others' criticisms of caucuses and superdelegates as being disenfranchising is totally legitimate.  Neither of those criticisms should be silenced because they are causing irrevocable damage to the party or to a given candidate - in fact, in the long run, airing such grievances will do the opposite.

2) I'm sure we'll have to agree to disagree on this one, but I think being a loyal democrat is illogical and lamentable, and I think many of Sanders' supporters feel the same way.  There's nothing more frustrating than seeing Democrats rationalize/excuse blatantly wrong things Democrats are doing (signature strikes, deregulation, killing progressive legislation because of industry/donor concerns, not admitting that campaign $ is a problem, etc etc) just because they have that D next to their name (I doubt you're as mindless as most of those people from what I've read of your writing).

It's okay and in fact helpful in the long run to have intraparty disagreements.  To me, the Democratic party is only valuable in so far as it is helping promote my values.  It hasn't been doing a great job at it, so I'm going to continue to harshly criticize it.  Of course, the Republican party has basically never promoted my values in my  lifetime, so I will continue to always vote against them strategically mostly for democrats in general elections.  In my opinion, tribalism is our big downfall as human beings, and we need to fight it and adhere faithfully (if also realistically) to rationally derived, empathetic principles.

Sanders is doing a fantastic job of fighting for what's right and criticizing the Democratic party in a way that it needs to be criticized but is not stupid enough not to recognize that there's too much at stake to be a Ralph Nader (in fact, the whole reason he became a Democrat, he admits, is to avoid being a Ralph Nader), and he won't be, this fearmongering about how he's this meglomaniacal devil who will blow the election for hillary is ridiculously overblown.

[Green Line]

Socialism always leads to dictatorship and rigged elections, but Bernie is letting the cart get ahead of the horse by trying to do it before he wins his first election.

[Joe Republic]

The guy wants a repeat of 1968.

[Virginiá]

1) When has Sanders accused elections of being "rigged?"  The only item I can find on google of him referring to something as "rigged" are national convention committee procedures, which are pretty objectively rigged.  He even backed off on cable TV as to go as far as Martin O'Malley to say that the debate schedule was "rigged" for Hillary, even though it obviously was.

He's criticized registration processes in closed states and poorly administered primaries/caucuses of being disenfranchising, which is a totally fair, legitimate criticism - just like others' criticisms of caucuses and superdelegates as being disenfranchising is totally legitimate.  Neither of those criticisms should be silenced because they are causing irrevocable damage to the party or to a given candidate - in fact, in the long run, airing such grievances will do the opposite.

Well I did go out of my way to make sure I didn't imply Sanders was making such blunt accusations - I forgot to remove "Convincing" as I was rewording. I don't believe Sanders is telling his supporters that Democrats are literally stealing elections by fraud, however...

This has become a big thing among parts of his base and there is no doubt he knows it, and I have seen little, if any efforts to curtail such thinking. His efforts would go a long way, and yet for some reason he isn't really trying at all. The colleges where most of my students are from seem to be rife with these conspiracies among the ones who follow his campaign.

As for the primary system - Sure, at this point, they should be open to both Democrats and Independents, but I only say this because so many people are labeling themselves as such and thus unable to participate. Personally, I find it annoying that so many people choose to label themselves independent yet end up voting for the same party time and time again. There are really substantially fewer "true" independents than the numbers let on. They find things annoying or shameful about the party and they choose to not officially associate - Fine, but don't complain if you suddenly want to participate in their primaries. Further, people shouldn't be demanding open primaries as if Democrats were wrong to ever do it any other way. Why aren't they asking why voters don't change their affiliation or why they are even independents in the first place?

A party's primary, imo, really shouldn't be open to everyone. It should be open to party members, but our hand is sort of forced when the masses demand to participate yet refuse to associate.

The annoying thing at this point is that as the current mood seems to be defined by "rigged elections" and politicians corrupted by special interests, every single little action is judged through a corruption perspective. Oh, why are the primaries closed?! Oh, why were registrations changed?! Oh, why are there registration deadlines?! Oh, why did Bernie only get 5 seats for the platform?!

2) I'm sure we'll have to agree to disagree on this one, but I think being a loyal democrat is illogical and lamentable, and I think many of Sanders' supporters feel the same way.  There's nothing more frustrating than seeing Democrats rationalize/excuse blatantly wrong things Democrats are doing (signature strikes, deregulation, killing progressive legislation because of industry/donor concerns, not admitting that campaign $ is a problem, etc etc) just because they have that D next to their name (I doubt you're as mindless as most of those people from what I've read of your writing).

My idea of party loyalty means I accept a certain degree of bs under the assumption policy I believe to be important and beneficial to society gets advanced. I don't excuse it and I will not generally try to justify or hide it, but I have a lot of concern for future party viability and success. So yes, what he's doing bothers me because: 1) He isn't winning the nomination and frankly control over the platform isn't this important, and 2) His decision to double down on Clinton instead of letting up now that the primary is all but settled is stupid and illogical in the fact that it hurts more than it helps. As I understand it, making primaries open has to be done by a state legislature, of which many have no reason to do it, and the platform isn't really binding, so why risk hurting the actual nominee for that? Democrats already believe in many of the same fundamental things. So why is he doing this?

Don't get me wrong - Party loyalty to me doesn't mean I rationalize everything they do, or ignore bad things.

Sanders is doing a fantastic job of fighting for what's right and criticizing the Democratic party in a way that it needs to be criticized but is not stupid enough not to recognize that there's too much at stake to be a Ralph Nader (in fact, the whole reason he became a Democrat, he admits, is to avoid being a Ralph Nader), and he won't be, this fearmongering about how he's this meglomaniacal devil who will blow the election for hillary is ridiculously overblown.

We'll have to agree to disagree on what's worth fighting for like this and exactly how much he can go off the rails before causing actual harm. Just because he says he understands the stakes doesn't make me believe he is always acting in a way that suggests he understands.

I don't really think he'll blow it, but to say he isn't creating the potential for a less significant win here would be inaccurate, imo. This is a rare chance for Democrats to hold the White House for 12 consecutive years at least, take back the the Senate, and if the winning PV is large enough, quite possibly the House. If we do that, we can finally make progress on so many pressing issues. So for Sanders to taint this for largely, in my eyes, petty reasons, is upsetting to me.

I don't really think I am being unreasonable in these views.

[Maxwell]

The guy wants a repeat of 1968.

He said he wants a "political revolution". I guess this is it.

[RaphaelDLG]

1) When has Sanders accused elections of being "rigged?"  The only item I can find on google of him referring to something as "rigged" are national convention committee procedures, which are pretty objectively rigged.  He even backed off on cable TV as to go as far as Martin O'Malley to say that the debate schedule was "rigged" for Hillary, even though it obviously was.

He's criticized registration processes in closed states and poorly administered primaries/caucuses of being disenfranchising, which is a totally fair, legitimate criticism - just like others' criticisms of caucuses and superdelegates as being disenfranchising is totally legitimate.  Neither of those criticisms should be silenced because they are causing irrevocable damage to the party or to a given candidate - in fact, in the long run, airing such grievances will do the opposite.

Well I did go out of my way to make sure I didn't imply Sanders was making such blunt accusations - I forgot to remove "Convincing" as I was rewording. I don't believe Sanders is telling his supporters that Democrats are literally stealing elections by fraud, however...

This has become a big thing among parts of his base and there is no doubt he knows it, and I have seen little, if any efforts to curtail such thinking. His efforts would go a long way, and yet for some reason he isn't really trying at all. The colleges where most of my students are from seem to be rife with these conspiracies among the ones who follow his campaign.

As for the primary system - Sure, at this point, they should be open to both Democrats and Independents, but I only say this because so many people are labeling themselves as such and thus unable to participate. Personally, I find it annoying that so many people choose to label themselves independent yet end up voting for the same party time and time again. There are really substantially fewer "true" independents than the numbers let on. They find things annoying or shameful about the party and they choose to not officially associate - Fine, but don't complain if you suddenly want to participate in their primaries. Further, people shouldn't be demanding open primaries as if Democrats were wrong to ever do it any other way. Why aren't they asking why voters don't change their affiliation or why they are even independents in the first place?

A party's primary, imo, really shouldn't be open to everyone. It should be open to party members, but our hand is sort of forced when the masses demand to participate yet refuse to associate.

The annoying thing at this point is that as the current mood seems to be defined by "rigged elections" and politicians corrupted by special interests, every single little action is judged through a corruption perspective. Oh, why are the primaries closed?! Oh, why were registrations changed?! Oh, why are there registration deadlines?! Oh, why did Bernie only get 4 seats for the platform?!

2) I'm sure we'll have to agree to disagree on this one, but I think being a loyal democrat is illogical and lamentable, and I think many of Sanders' supporters feel the same way.  There's nothing more frustrating than seeing Democrats rationalize/excuse blatantly wrong things Democrats are doing (signature strikes, deregulation, killing progressive legislation because of industry/donor concerns, not admitting that campaign $ is a problem, etc etc) just because they have that D next to their name (I doubt you're as mindless as most of those people from what I've read of your writing).

My idea of party loyalty means I accept a certain degree of bs under the assumption policy I believe to be important and beneficial to society gets advanced. I don't excuse it and I will not generally try to justify or hide it, but I have a lot of concern for future party viability and success. So yes, what he's doing bothers me because: 1) He isn't winning the nomination and frankly control over the platform isn't this important, and 2) His decision to double down on Clinton instead of letting up now that the primary is all but settled is stupid and illogical in the fact that it hurts more than it helps. As I understand it, making primaries open has to be done by a state legislature, of which many have no reason to do it, and the platform isn't really binding, so why risk hurting the actual nominee for that? Democrats already believe in many of the same fundamental things. So why is he doing this?

Don't get me wrong - Party loyalty to me doesn't mean I rationalize everything they do, or ignore bad things.

Sanders is doing a fantastic job of fighting for what's right and criticizing the Democratic party in a way that it needs to be criticized but is not stupid enough not to recognize that there's too much at stake to be a Ralph Nader (in fact, the whole reason he became a Democrat, he admits, is to avoid being a Ralph Nader), and he won't be, this fearmongering about how he's this meglomaniacal devil who will blow the election for hillary is ridiculously overblown.

We'll have to agree to disagree on what's worth fighting for like this and exactly how much he can go off the rails before causing actual harm. Just because he says he understands the stakes doesn't make me believe he is always acting in a way that suggests he understands.

I don't really think he'll blow it, but to say he isn't creating the potential for a less significant win here would be inaccurate, imo. This is a rare chance for Democrats to hold the White House for 12 consecutive years at least, take back the the Senate, and if the winning PV is large enough, quite possibly the House. If we do that, we can finally make progress on so many pressing issues. So for Sanders to taint this for largely, in my eyes, petty reasons, is upsetting to me.

I don't really think I am being unreasonable in these views.

1) I think when the combination of FPTP and ballot-access related court decisions render our govt a de facto two party system the two major parties have to be fairly wide open, as you don't have a choice but to be a Republican or a Democrat in most areas, as you are just wasting your time/vote.

2) I think the fundamental disagreements between the various liberal factions is just how much of a victory a potential two years of Democratic policy-making would be. 

Under Obama's two years of united govt, we got the stimulus, which I guess was pretty awesome and even though it had broad agreement from economists and policy groups was not a given under many Republican-controlled admins.  We also got Obamacare, which was a decidedly mediocre baby step that didn't control costs and Dodd-Frank which papered over too big to fail, a massive extraction of wealth, and was promptly defanged anyways.  On foreign policy, he left Iraq and negotiated with Iran but stayed in Afghanistan and immorally and unconstitutionally murdered children and U.S. citizens in reckless signature strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia that killed the wrong person 90% of the time and wasted political capital in those countries for what I believe are cynical political calculations.  I guess that's way, way less of a big foreign policy blunder than Iraq, sadly I guess that's the shamefully low standard against which US foreign policy is judged.

I think even if Democrats keep winning there are big systemic problems that affect the Democrats too that might not be addressed that will water down the effects of their victories.  If the devil came to me with a deal that guaranteed clean, $-free elections and an open voter franchise with IRV for 100 years in exchange for Republicans controlling everything for 8 years, I'd probably take that deal.  Generally, in the real world, you have to just simply keep voting for the most progressive option possible until the group of people willing to do something about systemic problems is big enough - i.e., vote for Democrats every time whether you like it or not.

I think in general people like myself WAY UNDERRATE the value of simply having a Democratic President or a Democratic chamber to play defense and block Republicans from doing horrifying damage.

[Virginiá]

2) I think the fundamental disagreements between the various liberal factions is just how much of a victory a potential two years of Democratic policy-making would be.  

Actually that's a good point.

I think even if Democrats keep winning there are big systemic problems that affect the Democrats too that might not be addressed that will water down the effects of their victories.  If the devil came to me with a deal that guaranteed clean, $-free elections and an open voter franchise with IRV for 100 years in exchange for Republicans controlling everything for 8 years, I'd probably take that deal.  Generally, in the real world, you have to just simply keep voting for the most progressive option possible until the group of people willing to do something about systemic problems is big enough - i.e., vote for Democrats every time whether you like it or not.

If I knew that was what would happen, I'd gladly accept. I do believe it is possible that Sanders' campaign could end up being positively consequential long-term, I'll admit that, but I don't really see it right now. I just see him softening her up for no good reason while he could be channeling his energy and resources into building a solid progressive movement and the organizational capacity to grow a more honest, liberal governing majority.

I think in general people like myself WAY UNDERRATE the value of simply having a Democratic President or a Democratic chamber to play defense and block Republicans from doing horrifying damage.

In terms of the presidency, it's not just blocking, but also about appointing federal judges and USSC justices. 12 years in the White House is hard to pull off, especially considering Obama had to weather a bad recovery that was obstructed by power-hungry Republicans. If we were to get 12, or even 16 years, we could bring about a generation or more of a liberal federal judiciary, as opposed to the conservative judiciary that has been ongoing since the 70s. This is a big reason I am so hyper-sensitive to Bernie's actions ever since his shot at the nomination was done with. It was a conservative SCOTUS majority that brought Citizens United and Shelby v Holder down on this country, and we are very close to reversing it.