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 All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

portlander23

(2,078 posts)
Fri Jun 3, 2016, 07:31 AM Jun 2016

Democrats weigh how to nudge Sanders out

Democrats weigh how to nudge Sanders out
Manu Raju
CNN

Democrats in Washington have begun discussing how to encourage Sen. Bernie Sanders to end his campaign without alienating his legions of supporters, as party leaders grow eager to unite the party behind Hillary Clinton and provide a more robust defense for her candidacy.

Some top Democrats privately say Clinton should consider the ultimate way to bring the progressive firebrand's supporters into the fold: Choose Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren as her vice presidential pick.

If he doesn't drop out, the options on how to persuade him to quit boil down to this: Propose potential process reforms, including gutting the role of superdelegates in choosing the next nominee, give him a prime speaking slot at the Democratic Convention and even dump the head of the Democratic National Committee, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a controversial figure among Sanders' supporters.

"He's going to be an incredibly impactful spokesman for Hillary," Murphy said. "Once the president and Elizabeth Warren and Bernie get behind Hillary, that's going to be impactful. I'm not wringing my hands on whether it happens next week or next month."


It's going to be interesting how this goes down. I don't think Elizabeth Warren is going to be the VP pick; if she wanted anywhere near the presidency, she would have run. And based on the resistance to Mrs. Clinton and the support for Mr. Sanders, I think there's a decent chance she could have been the nominee.

The question is what will Mrs. Clinton and the DNC offer the left? It sounds like they're thinking concessions. My take is Mrs. Clinton is going to offer the left the same proposition Mr. Clinton did in the nineties, which is nothing. Nothing and the threat that the left has nowhere else to go.
47 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Democrats weigh how to nudge Sanders out (Original Post) portlander23 Jun 2016 OP
These people are DEAF! dana_b Jun 2016 #1
They're not deaf Nonhlanhla Jun 2016 #7
No it is just a rehash of the same thing they have been pushing since December 2015 GreatGazoo Jun 2016 #18
Ted Cruz said the same thing Renew Deal Jun 2016 #34
Apples to oranges. Republicans don't have super delegates. Cruz had no path to winning via any form Exilednight Jun 2016 #43
They have hundreds of unpledged delegates Renew Deal Jun 2016 #46
Anything Clinton offers as a "concession" is a filthy lie. djean111 Jun 2016 #2
The times are different Nonhlanhla Jun 2016 #9
Don't count on it BlindTiresias Jun 2016 #26
There's nothing remotely progressive about the Clintons jfern Jun 2016 #45
I agree completely. PowerToThePeople Jun 2016 #30
Its a shame Mnpaul Jun 2016 #3
This ^ Newkularblue Jun 2016 #6
That's because it is dangerous to get between politicians and their big donors. HereSince1628 Jun 2016 #12
Yup. Shadowflash Jun 2016 #28
Great way to put it.. pangaia Jun 2016 #36
A crying shame Hiraeth Jun 2016 #25
Methinks the left wing of the party is more of a threat... Raster Jun 2016 #29
I think the number of people saying they won't vote for Hillary does not reach any critical mass. upaloopa Jun 2016 #4
"Hey, Bernie, let's go out for lunch today. Oh, look, let's stop here for a bit." randome Jun 2016 #5
Yeah, she could sure use an intervention about now. Hiraeth Jun 2016 #24
Donate to Bernie warrprayer Jun 2016 #35
He's being "nudged out" by the voters. JoePhilly Jun 2016 #8
It's pretty clear Clinton isn't working to win Sanders supporters... HereSince1628 Jun 2016 #10
Senate leader replacement of Reid. mmonk Jun 2016 #11
I don't want Warren as VP. LWolf Jun 2016 #13
The 'legions' who don't vote. Great fighting technique. randome Jun 2016 #14
I'm not sure which orifice LWolf Jun 2016 #15
But they aren't voting for Sanders, either. randome Jun 2016 #16
Your vision is clearly limited. LWolf Jun 2016 #17
I have no problem with transforming society. Increase my taxes. Cut the military. randome Jun 2016 #19
Do you recognize the irony in your post? LWolf Jun 2016 #20
Sure, it's possible. randome Jun 2016 #21
Nice of you to humanize yourself. senz Jun 2016 #38
Please. Even some of his supporters are saying he needs an intervention. randome Jun 2016 #42
Bernie does not "attack" Clinton. He makes brief contrasts, perfectly allowable. senz Jun 2016 #47
It is not June 16 yet. I will not vote for Hillary. Pastiche423 Jun 2016 #22
I think a Clinton/Warren ticket is a losing ticket in the GE. Hiraeth Jun 2016 #23
Bus ticket to Vermont....sanders reneging on beachbum bob Jun 2016 #27
Love Elizabeth but her as VP does not change my view Hillary should not be president. AtomicKitten Jun 2016 #31
Fuck the democrats in Washington. They are pathetic boot lickers. onecaliberal Jun 2016 #32
Tell us warrprayer Jun 2016 #37
And yet someone upthread called us egomaniacs for caring. senz Jun 2016 #40
Indeed. I don't know if it's not too late already anyway. onecaliberal Jun 2016 #41
HRC will have a hard time getting over infamous Clinton vindictiveness. aikoaiko Jun 2016 #33
I don't think they're prepared to offer meaningful concessions. Chan790 Jun 2016 #39
Nudge him out? They went nuclear months ago! jfern Jun 2016 #44

Nonhlanhla

(2,074 posts)
7. They're not deaf
Fri Jun 3, 2016, 07:59 AM
Jun 2016

They just know that it's pointless and destructive for Bernie to stay in until the convention. The SD's are not going to switch to him. So why waste weeks of potential GE time on pretending that the nomination isn't decided yet? We need to get working against Trump, for goodness sake!

GreatGazoo

(3,937 posts)
18. No it is just a rehash of the same thing they have been pushing since December 2015
Fri Jun 3, 2016, 09:04 AM
Jun 2016

The tell is: "Democrats in Washington have begun discussing" Begun ?

It is the same kind of selective amnesia that let's them say that the Sandy Hook ads were not negative and pretend like the race isn't, all things considered, dead even.

Exilednight

(9,359 posts)
43. Apples to oranges. Republicans don't have super delegates. Cruz had no path to winning via any form
Sat Jun 4, 2016, 08:11 AM
Jun 2016

Of delegate math.

 

djean111

(14,255 posts)
2. Anything Clinton offers as a "concession" is a filthy lie.
Fri Jun 3, 2016, 07:36 AM
Jun 2016
My take is Mrs. Clinton is going to offer the left the same proposition Mr. Clinton did in the nineties, which is nothing. Nothing and the threat that the left has no where else to go.

Oh, I can see that at DU.

Don't think it will work this time around. To think that people who were uninterested in politics because politics is corrupt, and who know that Hillary is the Third Way warmongering cheerleader for that kind of politics - actually saying there will be pretty much no change - are going to stay interested in politics and support Hillary is pretty fucking stupid. They will just go back to trying to find jobs and trying to pay off their student loans.

Nonhlanhla

(2,074 posts)
9. The times are different
Fri Jun 3, 2016, 08:02 AM
Jun 2016

Bill Clinton was president in the aftermath of decades of GOP dominance, and directly after 12 years of the Reagan revolution. He governed with that in mind. Hillary will be president in a time when the mood in the country has shifted, when people are more disillusioned by Reaganism and its after-effects. Being a politician, I'm pretty sure she will adjust to that mood, and be a more progressive president than Bill was.

jfern

(5,204 posts)
45. There's nothing remotely progressive about the Clintons
Sat Jun 4, 2016, 08:13 AM
Jun 2016

and anyone who thinks otherwise is seriously deluded.

Mnpaul

(3,655 posts)
3. Its a shame
Fri Jun 3, 2016, 07:42 AM
Jun 2016

That the Democrats don't fight the Republicans as hard as they fight the left wing of the party.

HereSince1628

(36,063 posts)
12. That's because it is dangerous to get between politicians and their big donors.
Fri Jun 3, 2016, 08:30 AM
Jun 2016

This ain't three dimensional chess, or even sudoku.

upaloopa

(11,417 posts)
4. I think the number of people saying they won't vote for Hillary does not reach any critical mass.
Fri Jun 3, 2016, 07:48 AM
Jun 2016

There are a lot of people making a lot of noise and getting a lot of attention right now. Most of that is ego and narcissism.

The idea that they are superior to non Bernie folks and that he is some kind of saint is just mind fucking.

Most people understand that we cannot let Trump become President. Enough so that Hillary will be elected President.

The Bernie of Bust folks will be a footnote when this election is written about.

They should not be give any kind of respect since in reality they do not care what happens to to the middle class if Trump is elected.

It's time to paint them as the uncompromising self centered egomaniacs that they are. They are like little kids demanding that they get their way even though a majority do not agree with them.

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
5. "Hey, Bernie, let's go out for lunch today. Oh, look, let's stop here for a bit."
Fri Jun 3, 2016, 07:53 AM
Jun 2016

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

HereSince1628

(36,063 posts)
10. It's pretty clear Clinton isn't working to win Sanders supporters...
Fri Jun 3, 2016, 08:05 AM
Jun 2016

All the rhetoric suggests they are expected to be received as a gift.

As Bernies progressive party reformers meet the GE I expect the hand off to be rather like this:





LWolf

(46,179 posts)
13. I don't want Warren as VP.
Fri Jun 3, 2016, 08:40 AM
Jun 2016

I don't want any strong not-neo-liberal voice leashed into serving neo-liberal Hillary Clinton. Warren should keep fighting in the Senate. So should Sanders, should the worst happen and Clinton gain the nomination.

The ultimate way to gain the support of Bernie's "legions" is to nominate someone they can support. That's not neo-liberal Clinton.

Sanders, should he lose, will publicly endorse Clinton. He might campaign for her. It won't matter.

His "legions" support him because of his positions and record on issues. Clinton doesn't have what it takes to generate that support. As Sanders has repeatedly said, it's not about him. It's about the issues.

I'm sure Clinton will gain some "lesser evil" votes. She won't, though, can't, gain the support of the "legions" fighting against the very powers that pay her and the very way she works.

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
14. The 'legions' who don't vote. Great fighting technique.
Fri Jun 3, 2016, 08:43 AM
Jun 2016

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

LWolf

(46,179 posts)
15. I'm not sure which orifice
Fri Jun 3, 2016, 08:47 AM
Jun 2016

you pulled that one out of, but it's clearly false. Just because someone doesn't support Hillary Clinton doesn't mean that they don't vote, and those legions taking their work outside of electoral politics to continue working also doesn't mean that they won't vote. It simply means that they won't support neo-liberal politicians.

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
16. But they aren't voting for Sanders, either.
Fri Jun 3, 2016, 08:53 AM
Jun 2016

I just don't see 'legions' organized enough to do anything. A legion usually has a leader who has the support of the 'troops'. Those troops aren't coming through for Sanders. I disagree with those who say Sanders wouldn't be able to beat Trump. But he clearly isn't going to be our nominee.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

LWolf

(46,179 posts)
17. Your vision is clearly limited.
Fri Jun 3, 2016, 09:00 AM
Jun 2016

I'm sorry about that.

I realize that many Democrats are all about electoral politics. They choose a team and show up to support the team during campaign season, then go back to their lives until the next.

Those "legions" you refer to are not limited to electoral politics. That's not the only tool in the box. So, no matter where their vote lands in November, they will still be active.

As far as electoral politics goes, they'll be seeking, recruiting, supporting candidates that are not neo-liberals all the way down the ticket.

But there is so much more to activism, and that's where the energy of those "legions" will be focused; if there isn't an acceptable candidate to support, they will simply move beyond the election into other actions, rather than going home to wait another four years.

I'm sorry you don't get that. It indicates that you are one of those Democrats I mentioned above: your energy and passion for politics is narrowly focused on a single goal.

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
19. I have no problem with transforming society. Increase my taxes. Cut the military.
Fri Jun 3, 2016, 09:07 AM
Jun 2016

I just don't see or hear of much activism going on. If it's all being done out of sight, I'm fine with that, too. And yes, supporting like-minded candidates other than the office of the President is key to changing things.

As for my own energy and passion, well, not everyone has the time or the inclination to be an activist. Some of us are busy with our own lives. But I will always support those who actually get things done.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

LWolf

(46,179 posts)
20. Do you recognize the irony in your post?
Fri Jun 3, 2016, 09:11 AM
Jun 2016

You want things done, but you are busy with your own life, so leave it to others to get things done.

Is it possible that you don't see or hear of much activism going on because you leave it to others instead of getting involved?

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
21. Sure, it's possible.
Fri Jun 3, 2016, 09:22 AM
Jun 2016

But in 2008 my daughters and I canvassed for Obama. We may not be Super-Activists but we are not completely cut off from society, either. Divorce, buying a house for my daughters, getting them off to college, now getting said house fixed to sell it -well, like I said, I have things going on right now.

That doesn't mean I won't support events or issues that come to light. I donate money from time to time to worthy causes. I sign every MoveOn petition that gets emailed to me, usually adding a comment in a Conservative-kind of mindset to get through to whatever boneheaded legislator is at the root of it.

My daughters and I have long-ranging conversations on philosophy, equal rights and dissecting the opinions of their classmates.

We are engaged, just not as engaged as some others.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

 

senz

(11,945 posts)
38. Nice of you to humanize yourself.
Fri Jun 3, 2016, 10:55 PM
Jun 2016

Too bad it can't erase all the insults and gloating that preceded it. Including this charmer from the current thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2114365

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
42. Please. Even some of his supporters are saying he needs an intervention.
Sat Jun 4, 2016, 06:42 AM
Jun 2016

Attacking Clinton now is not in anyone's best interests.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

 

senz

(11,945 posts)
47. Bernie does not "attack" Clinton. He makes brief contrasts, perfectly allowable.
Sat Jun 4, 2016, 01:33 PM
Jun 2016

As for the rest of us, getting the truth out about Clinton is extremely important -- unless you consider her a stealth candidate.

 

AtomicKitten

(46,585 posts)
31. Love Elizabeth but her as VP does not change my view Hillary should not be president.
Fri Jun 3, 2016, 10:31 PM
Jun 2016

Hillary abused her power at State and has a federal indictment hanging over her head. The party is playing Russian Roulette pushing her forward as the nominee, and I've got my lawn chair, popcorn, and margaritas ready.



onecaliberal

(32,471 posts)
32. Fuck the democrats in Washington. They are pathetic boot lickers.
Fri Jun 3, 2016, 10:34 PM
Jun 2016

They don't give a flying fuck about anyone except those lining their pockets. If the people in this country weren't so stupid they would have been tarred and feathered and run out of town long ago in favor of real democrats. The ones who fought for independence and built this country with hard work and determination. The greedy fucks now own everything and their only desire is to wring every last penny out of your dead tired ass before you drop dead without healthcare.

 

senz

(11,945 posts)
40. And yet someone upthread called us egomaniacs for caring.
Fri Jun 3, 2016, 11:15 PM
Jun 2016

I just hope the millennials can see what has happened and is happening and take from that the motivation to stay with this after the election is over. Because it is their future that is at stake.

onecaliberal

(32,471 posts)
41. Indeed. I don't know if it's not too late already anyway.
Sat Jun 4, 2016, 12:16 AM
Jun 2016

This country is corrupt at every single solitary way shape form and fashion.

aikoaiko

(34,127 posts)
33. HRC will have a hard time getting over infamous Clinton vindictiveness.
Fri Jun 3, 2016, 10:36 PM
Jun 2016

which is why we hear more from other Democratic party officials than her or her campaign about this issue. I'm sure she doesn't think she needs to do anything. She might be right because Trump is a nightmare.

Bernie's been clear that he is campaigning until the last delegate vote at the convention. The party should just let it play out.

 

Chan790

(20,176 posts)
39. I don't think they're prepared to offer meaningful concessions.
Fri Jun 3, 2016, 11:06 PM
Jun 2016

I've been thinking about this, what would be fair and what would be reasonable. I think I've come up with a reasonable plank to seek and request. I don't see the Clintonites agreeing to it though because I believe they are committed to not making reasonable concessions, only symbolic gestures. I don't like what I'm proposing...but it's enough to move me to grudgingly vote for Clinton if she's the nominee.

  • A Veep pick. Pretty straight-forward. A throwback to the coalition politics of the 1950s-1970s where the Presidential nominee didn't so much pick someone of their choosing as much as acquiesced to a coalition partner they could live with. You don't think JFK really wanted LBJ on the ticket with him, do you? No. Johnson had the power in the smoke-filled back-rooms to deny Jack Kennedy the nomination...and what Lyndon Baines Johnson wanted was to be the successor. So he did and so he was. I don't think Sanders should take the position himself, he's too old to run in 4 years and that's what this is about. 2020 and being the President-in-waiting. Being able to name the next-in-line and commit Hillary now to endorsing that person is a big get.

  • Four and Out. I get it. It's a coronation for Clinton. Not just the Presidency, but her name in the history books. First Woman President of the United States. Nobody can take that away from her. Let's be honest though. She's the candidate of a wing of the party that is receding in power...even most of her supporters are more keen on her than on neoliberalism and the Third Way. This is a last lap for the neolibs, the likely end of their time in the spotlight...and like all fading acts, there is nothing more pathetic than a performer that doesn't know when the stage has left them behind and it's time to get out of the limelight. This is their last hurrah. One term is all she needs to make history...one and done it is. She's not exactly young either; there are and should be questions even now about her ability to win a second term. She'd be in trouble if the GOP had their shit in order instead of being the party in a full meltdown. We can't count on the GOP in 2020 to run an incompetent buffoon...at some point, the adults are going to take back the GOP from the tea-babies, faux-Reaganite narcissists, Bible-humpers and the Trumpers. She gets to go out on her own terms and pass the torch to the future of the party while insuring 8 more years of Democratic rule. In the process she probably gets to clinch the permanent destruction of the GOP and definitely end the conservative moralist wing that spent 8 years trying to ruin her life and brand Bill with a scarlet A.

  • A meaningful endorsement in 2020 of "Who's got next." Simple and we already covered it...she endorses a good progressive for 2020 that is agreeable to the progressive wing of the party, regardless what her own close allies think of that candidate...ideally the same one she took as a VP.

  • No more Debbie Downer. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz goes and there will be no role for her in a Clinton administration. It's such a small concession that would mean so much...who doesn't want to see the door slammed in the face of the Littlefinger of Democratic politics? It doesn't have long-term gains or strategic value...it's just gratifying to see the worthy get their comeuppance.
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Democrats weigh how to nu...