The Democratic Party establishment does not want a "democratic socialist" as President.

[kentuck]

That is the bottom line.

And that is why the chosen "super delegates" will not vote for Bernie.

However, if there is an indictment of Hillary between now and the Democratic convention, it could change that reality?

And as we know, if there is a politically-motivated Republican judge in the picture, anything is possible.

[elleng]

1. The Democratic Party establishment

wants an establishment candidate, and that's why they concocted 'super delegates.' We're stuck with them and the establishment now.

[dubyadiprecession]

2. If anything were to happen to hillary, we would of course nominate Joe Biden.

[libdem4life]

5. and then proceed to lose. Joe's a good guy, but His Heart Is Not In It.

He's an emotional guy...which makes him so likeable. But his deceased son asked him Not To Run. How do you get past that?

Also, I'm going to guess that's not how he wants to be remembered in the Democratic Party ... helping HRC fend off her scandals. Because President or no President, those, especially the Foundation, do not go away.

[winter is coming]

6. We would? Why "of course"?

If Hillary gets taken down by her actions while SoS, there's likely to be blowblack on the Obama Administration, making Biden a dubious proposition.

[bkkyosemite]

40. No we would (if she is nominee and screws up) have Bernie Sanders for President but then

again we might have him anyway.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

52. who is 'we?'

Joe Biden would not run

[seabeyond]

3. We do not want Sanders, is the issue.

[pmorlan1]

28. Yeah Because

if you can't get your candidate you want to make sure Sanders supporters can't get theirs. Got it.

[seabeyond]

29. Well, I dunno, kinda seems like the point of a primary, lol. Ah ha.

[pmorlan1]

34. Question about indictment

The discussion was about if she were to be indicted who would become the nominee.

[seabeyond]

47. Not a discussion I have. Irrelevant, this here and now.

[Seeinghope]

55. Oh well too bad. When you choose to back a candidate under FBI investigation. That is the chance

that you knowing took. The candidate that actually ran for the office and received votes would get the nomination might not be able to proceed thru the election and /or serve as President of the United States. If the Hillary Clinton voters didn't back Hillary Clinton and instead demanded another candidate, then maybe they might be satisfied by a different candidate that wasn't under the threat of being unable to continue as the President of the United States candidate.

You took a gamble knowing that Hillary Clinton has a long history of lying and you lost. You cannot then just decide to install someone else.

[seabeyond]

58. No, not really. I am pretty damn confident in Clinton position.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. Shades of '68

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Democratic_National_Convention

In 1968 the Democratic Party was divided. Senators Eugene McCarthy and Robert F. Kennedy had entered the campaign in March, challenging Johnson for the Democratic nomination. Johnson, facing dissent within his party, had dropped out of the race on March 31.[6] Vice President Hubert Humphrey then entered into the race, but did not compete in any primaries, compiling his delegates in caucus states that were controlled by party leaders. After Kennedy's assassination on June 5, the Democratic Party's divisions grew.[5] At the moment of Kennedy's death the delegate count stood at Humphrey 561.5, Kennedy 393.5, McCarthy 258.[7] Kennedy's murder left his delegates uncommitted.

Support within the party was divided between Senator McCarthy, who ran a decidedly anti-war campaign and was seen as the peace candidate,[8] and Vice President Humphrey, who was seen as the candidate representing the Johnson point of view.[9]

In the end, the Democratic Party nominated Humphrey. Even though 80 percent of the primary voters had been for anti-war candidates, the delegates had defeated the peace plank by 1,567¾ to 1,041¼.[10] The loss was perceived to be the result of President Johnson and Chicago Mayor Richard Daley influencing behind the scenes.[10] Humphrey, who had not entered any of 13 state primary elections, won the Democratic nomination, and went on to lose the election to the Republican Richard Nixon.[11]

[Dr Hobbitstein]

24. The difference here being that in '68 most people voted against Humphrey

While is 2016, most people voted for Hillary.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

32. And, most people voted against him in the GE.

Most people voted for "Peace with Honor" and flag waving.as spouted my Nixon. Most people shunned "More of the same" as Humphrey promised.

Trump is even more of a demagogue than Nixon and offers the same sort of crap. Hillary offers "more of the same" larded with "not as bad".

[Dr Hobbitstein]

35. Moving the goalposts?

You said 2016 was like the '68 convention, which it is decidedly not, then you move the goal posts to the GE, which hasn't happened yet.

This is NOTHING like '68. In '68, the people didn't chose the candidate. The only way it would be like '68 is if the supers turned around and gave it to Bernie.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

39. Doesn't Hillary have to convince "the people" to vote for her after she's nominated?

Including Democrats, Republicans, Independents? Otherwise, the nomination becomes meaningless and she becomes a mighta been footnote.

As Humphrey and many others discovered after they were nominated.

[Madam Mossfern]

43. Not even that.

n/t

[Fumesucker]

7. Giving a cat a pill is trivial by comparison

[libdem4life]

8. And Comey leans to the right, which is supposedly why he is being extra

diligent, yet forced to be responsive to the newer elements of the situation. The leaks have been Stopped. Cold. This isn't just the email situation. Not at all.

Actually, the Democratic Party is terrified it's losing a portion of its base and the new ones that Bernie brought into the picture. When you count in a 3rd Party taking 15% of the vote, it's a crap shoot and they may not have as many choices as they think.

Bernie is here to stay...President or not. I'm fine with that. But the rest of his is FUBAR.

[TeacherB87]

9. Most of the voters didn't want him either.

Doesn't mean they don't support democratic socialism. They just don't support Bernie. And the superdelegates will NEVER support Bernie because he will NEVER earn a majority of pledged delegates. Bernie should have planned better if he wanted to defeat the Democratic Party Establishment. It takes an Obama-esque effort to pull that off.

[demwing]

38. Don't pretend the SD has ANYTHING to do with pledged delegates

not when hundreds of them lined up behind Hillary before the first vote was cast, or when a state overwhelmingly supported Bernie, but the SDs there still supported Hillary.

[B Calm]

10. The last socialist president won WW2, has the party been taken over by the third way?

Well of course it has. This election we have a chance to win back our party that labor built, vote for Bernie!

[kentuck]

18. I like the sentiment.

Bernie represents the best attributes of the Democratic Party, in my opinion.

[B Calm]

19. He sure does! The most honest and the most trustworthy candidate in the race! He makes proud!

[eastwestdem]

22. Honest? To convince mostly young people to believe in pie-in-the-sky promises that have no

backbone? When questioned he has repeatedly shown that he is unable to articulate any reasonable plans to implement any of his grand ideas. Sure, I'd love to give each and every American a free pony, but that ain't going to happen either.

Then, once it is clear that he has no path to win, he continues (for months) to ask these same supporters for money? Supporters who are mostly at the lower end of the socio-economic spectrum. How is this honest and trustworthy?

[B Calm]

23. Thanks, I think I'll send him another twenty bucks!

[eastwestdem]

25. I'm glad you can afford it. Many cannot, and need the money more than a guy who has already lost. nt

[redstateblues]

26. FDR was not a socialist, he was a Democrat. Bernie has called himself a socialist

FDR ushered in some socialist ideas but our system has always been a hybrid

[B Calm]

36. He ushered in SOME socialist ideas, lol. The New Deal.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal

[pampango]

30. I don't think FDR considered himself a socialist but he was as close as we've had.

The funny thing is that many modern progressive countries are still governed using the principles and policies of FDR. We are not one of them.

[Raastan]

37. Blame the Republicans for that, not Democrats

[demwing]

41. Bill Clinton did more to pull the Dem Party away from FDR

than the entire Republican party over a full generation.

[pampango]

45. I do blame republicans. They fought FDR (though they could not stop him). They have fought

his principles ever since.

[geek tragedy]

11. Neither did democratic primary voters so

that ends the meaningful debate on the subject.

[NCTraveler]

12. I'm not sure I completely agree.

The Democratic Party establishment doesn't want this Democratic Socialist. A number of elected Democrats are very close to Sanders form of Democratic Socialism. Some would be far more palatable to the masses than Sanders.

He has done well. But time after time he has shown he truly doesn't even have fully formulated thoughts on his number one subject. He has found his activists roots and is doing very well.

He is a protest candidate and it's very well known he wast the first choice of the left either.

[seabeyond]

13. "it's very well known he wast the first choice of the left either." No, he wasn't.

It took a couple weeks or so for that group to let go of Warren and jump on board. I remember. Initially, I thought Sanders a fun run, an interesting candidate. So I immediately start conversing and researching. It too a while for the fat left to step in.

[Waiting For Everyman]

14. The party can strongarm in the nominee they want

but they can't make us vote for their choice. If they substitute in someone else besides Sanders, I don't think they would even get enough votes to be within stealing range. Even more than if Hilly were the nominee would probably stay home and not vote at all, and down ticket Dems would collapse.

Let's hope some in the Dem establishment are smarter than that.

[Chezboo]

50. They strongarmed in Willie

and made us (me, anyway) vote for him. I still believed certain things about my party back then.

[peggysue2]

15. Sorry

It's the voting public that has decided. In addition, to Hillary's pledged and super delegate lead, she has won the popular vote. Check the numbers. Unless, you're saying the voting public has become part of the 'establishment' or been somehow brainwashed into denying Senator Sanders' bid for the presidency. Sounds as nutty as it reads.

Look, I vividly recall how hard and heartbreaking the 2008 primary was, how I felt (pissed) at the outcome. Bernie Sanders has come up short in the same way Hillary did in that race. In fact, I would argue it was worse because she did win the popular vote in 2008. But the ultimate result was the same: she lost the nomination.

She proved her mettle when she endorsed and campaigned her heart out for Barack Obama. Bernie Sanders has the same opportunity--endorse and campaign to ensure that Donald Trump never sets foot in the WH. Sanders' supporters also have a choice: join the fight or not.

But if you're holding your breath for some legal mumbo-jumbo to turn this around for Sanders, you'll end up blue in the face. Hillary has withstood decades of right-wing smears and faux accusations. Even the Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi attacks, a tragedy turned into a political witch hunt by the GOP and resulting in an 11-hour interrogation. Which she passed btw with flying colors while making her interrogators look small & incompetent.

All this nonsense, yet she's still standing, strong and undeterred. It's the reason the Republicans hate the Clintons so much. Despite their best efforts, they have not been able to bring them down. They're not going to be successful this time either.

Because she's still standing.

[kentuck]

20. She is "still standing".

You have an interesting interpretation.

But, the bottom line, in my opinion, is how do we pull the Party together. Someone posted up-page about the election of '68 and we could see those types of forces at work in this election also, if we do not make an effort to work together.

[peggysue2]

48. Hey

I'm all for working together. But that means accepting the reality of the primary results. Hillary won; Bernie lost.

As I said above: Sanders has an opportunity to join the fight against Trump in the same way Hillary joined Barack Obama in 2008. Bernie's supporters have the same opportunity to support the Democratic ticket. Or not. We all get to choose in the same way we all get to vote for the primary candidate we supported.

But if you're interested in defeating Trump then pointing to '68 is counterproductive. Hillary Clinton has said she is quite willing to reach out to Senator Sanders, ensuring he does have an influential impact on the Party's platform. His people will have representation and a voice. But it's a two-way street. The loser doesn't get to set the entire agenda. Threatening to sabotage the convention won't work either nor will it alter the ultimate nomination result.

So yes, she is still standing but willing to reach out. Whether she receives an open hand or a fist is a decision Bernie Sanders will need to make. His legacy will largely be measured by that decision.

[kentuck]

49. No. I'm afraid it doesn't mean that.

We won. Get in line. Don't ask for anything.

No.

[brooklynite]

16. Apparently, neither do the Democratic voters...

[2banon]

17. Third Way rejected FDR, the "Democratic Socialist" in the last century

It's a sad commentary on the party establishment, but that's the truth.

The Democratic Party establishment does not want a "democratic socialist" as President.

[redstateblues]

33. FDR never called himself a Socialist

[DrDan]

21. no - it's the will of those participating in primaries and caucuses

The +3M vote difference is the elephant in the room for bs-supporters.

THAT is the bottom-line.

[Armstead]

60. Somewhere around 40 percent for Sandwers is also a part of that bottom line...

and that's not insignificant if you give a shit about winning elections and care about the future of the Democratic Party

[DrDan]

62. where did I say it was insignificant?

[Armstead]

65. "Elephant in the room" ....."bottom line"

That's fairly dismissive sounding.

It might be applicable if Bernie had gotten 5 percent of the vote....

[DrDan]

68. or because millions consider Hillary to be better qualified

[Armstead]

70. And millions don't

[DrDan]

72. no doubt - not denying that -but it had nothing to do with voters not wanting a democratic socialist

[Armstead]

74. You just went around in a circle

[DrDan]

78. that was the claim of the OP - I just do not think it is the case - voters see Hillary as more

qualified - to the tune of 3M more

[pampango]

27. In all fairness, I'm not sure the Democratic Socialist wanted to be in the Democratic establishment

until recently. I am glad he changed his mind.

[David__77]

31. Sanders is responsible for the outcome at the convention.

If he fails to be nominated, it will be his failure.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

42. Judges don't indict. The DOJ does

And as we know, if there is a politically-motivated Republican judge in the picture, anything is possible.

This is Civics 101 stuff...

[Starry Messenger]

44. That's really not the issue, imo.

It has more to do with the momentum from the Obama years, and also that it appears the no one in office has seen Bernie get heavily involved in hands on legislative work (aside from amendments.)

[MrsKirkley]

51. Kiss any hope of single-payer payer health care goodbye.

Hillary Clinton would rather have a for profit insurance mandate. Better learn to love those rising premiums, deductibles, and annual maximums. Forget about lowering the cost of health care and prescription drugs since single-payer is the only way to do that. How other developed countries must laugh watching us getting ripped off as we continue voting against our own best interests

[Agnosticsherbet]

53. The rank and file of the Democratic Party did not want Sanders as their nominee.

I don't think it is appropriate to desire Republicans to corrupt the justice system in order to disenfranchise Democratic voters.

[Armstead]

57. about 40 to 45 percent did

[Agnosticsherbet]

59. 55 to 60 percent did not. That is called Democracy.

[Armstead]

61. That's called horsehit....and a good way to lose the Big One if you keep that attitude up

[Agnosticsherbet]

63. Again, that is Democracy. Sanders lost because the majority did not vote for him

[Armstead]

67. That does not mean that the substantial minority does not matter

Whatca gonna do if Trump wins by 55 percent?

Just give up and say "Well I guess Democrats should not have any say in anything or any right to try and temper what they do. Let Trump and the GOP do whatever the hell they want because they own the place." Is that how you interpret democracy?

[RKP5637]

54. And, the Democratic Party establishment does not want their gravy train interrupted.

Often, when it comes to $$$$$'s, democrats and republicans are the SOS IMO.

[Armstead]

56. Shit they don't even want a Liberal

[beachbum bob]

64. bernie sanders a former member and elector of the Socialist Worker PArty which is semi-commie

organization

far from being a democratic socialist and more in line with marxist.....


america will NEVER elect this guy...GOP will make mincemeat of this....Sandersd being a pacifist AFRAID to defend to america...and looking like he is a crook on top of it

[EndElectoral]

66. A lot of this is about money and access. Pretty simple.

[Rex]

69. Well you know how scary words like 'socialist' scare people.

Let us face facts, WALL STREET does not want a socialist running the country...they love hiding their money in tax shelters and a socialist might demand they pay their fair share.

[Demsrule86]

71. Totally untrue

They won't vote for Bernie because he has less delegates than Hillary, and they never overturn the will of the voter...Hillary was closer in 08 and they would not do it then either.

[nadinbrzezinski]

73. There is no judge involved in the crimainal investgiation

and the two judges involved in the blip, blip, (censored) case are Clinton appointees and are Dems.

[Blue_Tires]

75. Based on the results, I'd say the primary voters don't want one, either...

[HooptieWagon]

76. The Democratic Party establishment...

...is bribed by the same corporations that bribe the Republican Party establishment. Of course they don't want the gravy train to come to a halt.

[JoePhilly]

77. Cross out the word "establishment" and your title is correct.

If we went just by majority pledged delegates ... the SDs are irrelevant.

Democrats picked Hillary, period.