2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumDemocrats 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.
dana_b
(11,546 posts)Bernie himself has said it 100 times, he is in it until the convention. Argh!
Sanders: I'm Heading to the Convention Even If Clinton Sweeps Calif., NJ Primaries
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/sanders-heading-convention-clinton-snags-delegates-ca-nj/story?id=39491735
Nonhlanhla
(2,074 posts)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)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.
Renew Deal
(81,801 posts)Where is he now?
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)Of delegate math.
Renew Deal
(81,801 posts)PA has 70 alone
djean111
(14,255 posts)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)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.
BlindTiresias
(1,563 posts)jfern
(5,204 posts)and anyone who thinks otherwise is seriously deluded.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)Mnpaul
(3,655 posts)That the Democrats don't fight the Republicans as hard as they fight the left wing of the party.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)This ain't three dimensional chess, or even sudoku.
Shadowflash
(1,536 posts)Don't bite the hand that feeds you, and all that.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)Raster
(20,996 posts)...you know, status quo, and all.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)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)[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)warrprayer
(4,734 posts)Before it's too late!
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)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:
mmonk
(52,589 posts)LWolf
(46,179 posts)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)[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
LWolf
(46,179 posts)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)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)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)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)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)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)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)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)As for the rest of us, getting the truth out about Clinton is extremely important -- unless you consider her a stealth candidate.
Pastiche423
(15,406 posts)Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)beachbum bob
(10,437 posts)His agreement with DNC...
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)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)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.
warrprayer
(4,734 posts)How you really feel.
senz
(11,945 posts)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)This country is corrupt at every single solitary way shape form and fashion.
aikoaiko
(34,127 posts)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)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.