Sanders Campaign staying in til DC

[RaphaelDLG]

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

[DS0816]

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

Don't bother. Too many of them, trying to pass themselves off as "Democrats," lack brains. They're too far gone.

[Virginiá]

I care about overall unity in that I don't want Sanders riding around trying to convince people that Hillary is a criminal who cheated to steal the nomination from him.  That could change people's perceptions of her in a wide-reaching way (in fact it already has).

Thank you! You've stated a number of good points in this thread. Personally, the reason I've been getting pissed off about this whole ordeal myself is not that Sanders and his supporters have some small policy disputes or accusations of random but relatively benign stuff. No, it's that Sanders spent months rambling on about the speeches, which is a stupid and pointless attack. I don't care how anyone tries to spin it, when people hear that, the final interpretation is almost always corruption. He's insinuating she is corrupt and having your own damn (influential) party primary opponent paint you as corrupt can have bad long-term consequences. Yes, she might still go on to win big, but it doesn't negate the damage to her image. Her image already sucked, and now Bernie had to go to work on her own damn party. Corruption is one of the worst character attributes to be defined with. Specifically, I'm pissed that he continued to do this after it became clear that he wasn't going to win. I mean wtf Bernie?

Then so many of his active supporters - Everything is rigged, the party is corrupt and self-serving and cares about no one. It's rotten and they stole Bernie's nomination! Blah, blah blah. At first this was just an online thing, and then it started bleeding into the colleges I work at, and that's when I really couldn't stomach Bernie's campaign anymore. If he wants his policy goals to have success, then damaging the only party who wants those same things (or similar things) is a freakin idiotic and terrible way to accomplish that. He has put so little effort into getting his supporters to stop this childish whining and lies about the election being stolen.

He's an asshole if he actually takes this to the convention. An even bigger one if this convention turns into a mess either directly or indirectly because of him. I can already see Cornel West causing scenes, and I'm sure he has a bunch of actual activists in delegate positions just salivating at the chance to do stupid bs on TV. Who knows how many people are going to be protesting outside. He could still drop out beforehand, but if he doesn't, then that's something like 1.5 wasted months he could have spent trying to make sure his supporters didn't turn the convention into a circus. The Democratic party leadership will hate him for that. Such a great way to get your vision for America through. Needlessly piss off the only people who want similar things.

I don't know if it was his idea or his campaign's to stay on this long, but if he just wanted to go around spreading his message, he could have done that without constantly attacking Clinton and allowing delusions and lies to fester among his active supporter base.

[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.

[emailking]

He can stay in to DC and still encourage people to vote, but once she's clinched the pledged delegates on Tuesday he should acknowledge she's won.

[Hermit For Peace]

I read that there have been 5 Bernie supporter groups who have filed petitions that have been granted to have protest rallies right near the DNC .

Bernie supporters were the only ones who have filed. So what is going to happen there?

[Virginiá]

^ 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.

That's true, and it's good that it finally became a big issue, if not thee issue. Because of this, I'm pretty confident that reform will happen sooner than later. One big surprise I've had from this is I didn't realize how damaging the whole issue would be to the Democratic party. Bringing this issue into focus among young people seems to be leading to people becoming super upset with their own party, and the worst time for that to happen is in a person's formative years. This could hurt Democrats' standing with these voters as they age, and that's sad because Democrats are the only politicians actually working towards campaign finance reform. Almost all Republicans are against it, or for it but unwilling to buck the party's collective position on it. I'm not trying to say they shouldn't be critical about their own party members if warranted, but the way this is playing out right now isn't good at all.

That being said, I still resent him for using possibly the most damaging attack line against her for months after it became clear he would not win. People now seem to think she goes to these events, stands up there auctioning off favors and kickbacks while reading a short, meaningless speech. The actual reality is her giving a long, meaningless speech. The speeches issue sounds bad but in reality it's relatively harmless. It hurts no one. Maybe it's sh**tty to take lots of money to stand in front of bankers, massaging their egos or praising their corrupt business, but how is that really relevant to her campaign?

I really don't think Hillary is any worse than others. She isn't innocent by any measure, but some people seem to think she is the worst, when that's simply not true. She's an old woman now, this will be her last foray into politics. She has no need to sell out and/or not push for good policy. My bet is she wants to leave a legacy, and that means she will work hard to make things actually happen. But, in the end, I think she is her own worst enemy. She could avoided her damaging image by not doing things that look bad, just for money (eg: speeches) ...

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.

I was more going on about him not putting in real, sustained efforts to reassure his supporters that they are wrong about these bs conspiracies. He has a lot of influence over them, and he didn't use it despite seeing it happening. imo, Bernie (and others) have a responsibility to keep confidence positive about our system. If our elections were truly corrupt and perpetually being stolen, I wouldn't say this, but it isn't. These crazed supporters peddling these lies are taking for granted our stable elections. It took a while to get to this point, and letting these lies spread like a disease is harmful to our process.

[Xing]

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.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

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.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

He says that you can't lump superdelegates in with pledged deletates because pledged delegates are "real".

It's true, though. HRC won't have the requisite number of pledged delegates after the District of Columbia votes on the 14th. Superdelegates don't vote until the convention.

No delegates vote until the convention.

This is like refusing to concede a general election because "the electoral college doesn't vote until December!"

If one suspected there was a good chance one's opponent would be the subject of a devastating indictment prior to the Electoral College vote, there would be good reason to decline to concede...

[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.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

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?

[IceSpear]

He says that you can't lump superdelegates in with pledged deletates because pledged delegates are "real".

It's true, though. HRC won't have the requisite number of pledged delegates after the District of Columbia votes on the 14th. Superdelegates don't vote until the convention.

No delegates vote until the convention.

This is like refusing to concede a general election because "the electoral college doesn't vote until December!"

If one suspected there was a good chance one's opponent would be the subject of a devastating indictment prior to the Electoral College vote, there would be good reason to decline to concede...

Keep dreaming.

[Hermit For Peace]

He says that you can't lump superdelegates in with pledged deletates because pledged delegates are "real".

It's true, though. HRC won't have the requisite number of pledged delegates after the District of Columbia votes on the 14th. Superdelegates don't vote until the convention.

No delegates vote until the convention.

This is like refusing to concede a general election because "the electoral college doesn't vote until December!"

If one suspected there was a good chance one's opponent would be the subject of a devastating indictment prior to the Electoral College vote, there would be good reason to decline to concede...

But Bernie doesn't think there is much to the email situation.

[Hermit For Peace]

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.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

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.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

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.

[Hermit For Peace]

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?

[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?

[Hermit For Peace]

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?

One of those is a bully.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

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

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.

And if the party takes that attitude into November, they lose.

They do have to adhere to his message, because his supporters might stay home. Establishment dems will do what they do best, namely vote for Democrats no matter how tightly they have to hold their nose.

Sure, he lost. But barring the nomination for the Presidency, he can demand basically whatever he wants.

Changing the party means changing the platform, and changing the message of the party to what Sanders advanced during the campaign. It means taking campaign finance seriously. It means tacking hard anti-wall st and anti-'free' trade agreements.

[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

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

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"

[This account no longer in use.]

Aaaaaaaaand this topic turned out to be bad. What a shock.

[Hermit For Peace]

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

See, the problem with Bernie is that he wants changes to the system, yesterday. And it ain't gonna happen that way. He already has pounded his message into the ground....we get it already. But it's not up to only him how the cookie crumbles and he needs to get that.