If you are in a primary and you need the support of another candidate's voters

[HereSince1628]

Why not just move your positions -closer- to those voters to win their support?

And if you move and you still don't get the ones you need, don't you move closer again?

Isn't that the tradition? Isn't that the basic two-step of negotiation of a candidate with the voters?

How come it seems that there is a refusal to bargain toward something that both sides want?

I know democratic politicians have recently had a strange approach to bargaining, but doesn't the negotiation arrange a quid pro quo?

Why just tell people you aren't bargaining and it'll be THEIR fault when things don't turnout well?

[ibegurpard]

1. since 3rd way took over Democratic Party

And honestly I wouldn't believe a candidate like that anyway.

[HereSince1628]

3. My question isn't the -when- of this, it is -WHY?-

It's become traditional for dems to run toward the base to win the nomination and then to run toward the independents to whin the general election.

It's fairly clear this season where the base is and where the independents are.

If you're a candidate and you need and want voters votes, it's tradition to -move toward them- not dig in your heels and threaten voters with bad things that will be -their- fault. That's not finding a message that works, that's the definitionof petulance: the quality of being sulky and bad-tempered:

[hedda_foil]

4. Except the independents aren't corporate centrists, which is why the ploy never worked.

Or at least never worked as advertised.

[HereSince1628]

7. If there aren't enough corporate centrists to get you the win...

maybe you need to rethink how insistent you are that you only attract corporate centrists?

[highprincipleswork]

2. For politicians who change with the wind and just tell you what you want to hear.

Is that really the kind of politician you want as your candidate? Who's in it only as long as it takes to get your vote and then goes another way?

That's not what I want.

That's why I'm working for Bernie Sanders. He says what he means and means what he says and acts accordingly and has done so for many decades. So, that makes him reliable.

Astounded that more people don't see that. But preparing with a heavy dose of "I told you so", just in case he doesn't win. Of course, that will be cold comfort, as so much that we hold dear would be held in the balance or lost with a Hillary presidency.

[HereSince1628]

5. I don't expect politicians to win votes by threatening voters with bad things if they don't

Fear is a feature and a tool of conservatism.

I expect politicians to grasp where their constituents (or the constituents they want to be theirs) are with respect to what is acceptable and to pledge to provide it.

I'm not suggesting that a person be a weathervane. I do expect pledges to mean something. I also don't expect a candidate to sit on the barn roof telling us the sky is going to fall unless we vote for him or her.

[peacebird]

6. It's not what I want. That's why I am voting for Bernie!

[HereSince1628]

8. From a voter's point of view, that's how it should be... you vote for

the person who best represents what you want and who is most likely to fulfill that.

But from the candidate's perspective... why blame voters for not being attracted to your message? Isn't it supposed to work the other way...where candidates are supposed to offer an attractive message and voters are drawn to it?