It’s mathematically impossible for Bernie to win with pledged delegates
05/03/2016
On July 12, Sanders officially endorsed Clinton.
Two months.
No more questions
But even then, I think Sanders was “mathematically” out of it in early May (superdelegates, court case…not sure if that is in that calculation). The convention was in late July. Not even three months. He endorsed her after two months. Not sure that is “way, way” anything. Not to mention any politician can still seek leverage at the convention. Been done since forever. No reason for him to just give up on trying to push policy changes he wanted.
And, he endorsed her. Wholeheartedly and diligently worked on her behalf. Something Clinton said she would not do for Sanders if he got the nomination in 2020.
You are demanding a lot. Can you name another politician who has done that better in support of the party?
He reluctantly and belatedly endorsed her. And the two speeches he has given since for her have basically been papered-over versions of his own stump speech. In short, since he ended his own campaign, Bernie Sanders hasn’t done much publicly to help get Hillary Clinton elected president.
Ok…Sanders campaigned diligently for Clinton.
The truth is that Bernie Sanders is very, very angry—at Donald Trump. He is angry enough to have spent weeks travelling on behalf of Hillary Clinton, speaking for her in union halls and arenas, to students and activists. When he talks, he is entirely Bernie—“We are going to fight for that democracy; we are not going to become an oligarchy”—and he hints strongly that he has done some negotiating with her before getting on the stage, and will continue to do so after, as he hopes, she is elected. When praising her positions, he often says “Secretary Clinton has told me” or “Secretary Clinton has promised,” as though he knows that it might not work, with the sort of swing audiences he is dispatched to persuade (students, working-class voters), simply to declare that taking these stands is in her nature. But he knows what he wants: for her to win. “This campaign is not a personality contest,” Sanders said near the beginning of a speech in Raleigh, North Carolina, on Thursday night. “We’re not voting for high-school president. We’re voting for the most powerful leader in the entire world.” He had been introduced by Pharrell Williams, the musician, who was now sitting on the stage with Clinton herself, as if it were an actual high-school election. Statements like that serve to remind Sanders’s supporters that they don’t need to be charmed by Hillary Clinton—he is over it, and they ought to be, too. But, if personality doesn’t matter, the person does.
< snip >
Since conceding defeat in the primaries, Sanders has been one of the real champions of this campaign. He let his supporters yell at him and deride him as a sellout in bleak delegate breakfasts at the Democratic National Convention, in Philadelphia, as he endorsed Clinton and explained why they needed to do the same. He made getting support for her his priority, putting aside any subtle, undermining gestures that might have better preserved his rebel-rock-star status. He has kept doing so despite other revelations in the Podesta e-mails, ones that are not about him personally but about issues that he believes in—for example, about money in politics, as exemplified by the Clinton team’s nurturing of donors. And he has earned the right to negotiate hard on such issues in the future. - SOURCE
What more do you (general “you”) expect? What candidate who has ever lost done better for their opponent?
lol, that was on election eve. And from your own source:
The truth is that Bernie Sanders is very, very angry—at Donald Trump. He is angry enough to have spent weeks travelling on behalf of Hillary Clinton, speaking for her in union halls and arenas, to students and activists.
Weeks! In November!
Are you saying Sanders only helped Clinton in November of 2016?
Did you read the article?
Well, clearly also in October. What did I miss?
Also from your source:
and he hints strongly that he has done some negotiating with her before getting on the stage, and will continue to do so after, as he hopes, she is elected. When praising her positions, he often says “Secretary Clinton has told me” or “Secretary Clinton has promised,” as though he knows that it might not work, with the sort of swing audiences he is dispatched to persuade (students, working-class voters), simply to declare that taking these stands is in her nature.
Sounds like he was 100% in.
Really? I posted it just above:
Since conceding defeat in the primaries, Sanders has been one of the real champions of this campaign. He let his supporters yell at him and deride him as a sellout in bleak delegate breakfasts at the Democratic National Convention, in Philadelphia, as he endorsed Clinton and explained why they needed to do the same. He made getting support for her his priority, putting aside any subtle, undermining gestures that might have better preserved his rebel-rock-star status. He has kept doing so despite other revelations in the Podesta e-mails, ones that are not about him personally but about issues that he believes in—for example, about money in politics, as exemplified by the Clinton team’s nurturing of donors. And he has earned the right to negotiate hard on such issues in the future.
So?
I was being sarcastic.
You haven’t responded to the article I posted, which talks about how slow and desultory his support was. And even in your article, his tepid support (mostly against Trump, not for her) as evidenced by my pull-quote, wasn’t going to woo many of his supporters.
I guess we have dueling articles, and dueling memories.
I guess on what you consider to be big changes. I get her campaign ads all the time and she’s saying some of her goals are to establish a universal health care system and phase out the use of fossil fuels.
Okay, I would consider those big - that wasn’t visible to me, sorry about that.
So are those 2 goals “crazy far left”?
As of 05/03/2016, Sanders had lost the election.
Not until July 12, did Sanders endorse Clinton.
Over two months of useless constant attacks and attack ads- not on trump, oh no- on Hillary Clinton- and this was one of the factors that brought us trump.
Sanders is partially responsible for trump winning. It is a fact.
Two months earlier, when he lost. That is when he should have conceded and started working for Clinton and against trump, instead he and his supporters spent two months working against Clinton- which means effectively working for trump.
And since his supporters go so into hate hate hate for Hillary- many stayed home, voted 3rd party and continued their attacks on Clinton- even after Sanders belatedly gave in. Which gave the election to trump.
Clinton and the DNC rigged the game against Sanders from the get-go. There was a court case about it and the court found that the game was rigged but said the DNC was allowed to do that if they wanted. Add in superdelegates which were against Sanders from the get-go.
Further, your Sanders supporters into hate hate hate for Hillary were never never never going to vote for Hillary. They were conservative voters who did not like Trump but felt they saw something in Sanders. When Sanders was out they went back to Trump.
Name another candidate who came so close and then worked to support the nominee. A candidate who was proven to have been cheated by their own party (he was legally running as a Dem). Why is Sanders held to some standard no one else had ever been. Heck, Clinton herself said she would not support Sanders if he became the nominee in 2020. But Sanders had to kiss the ring?
The persistence of many here is very MAGA-like. Clinton cannot have done anything wrong. She ran a magical campaign. It simply must be Sanders’ fault.
It has very clearly been stated more than once that it is partially his fault.
Because he had the temerity to run for office?
And the reasons that it is partially his fault have been been stated clearly more than once. Is there some reason I should believe that you would accept them coming from me when you haven’t accepted them from anyone else?
I have seen no reasons beyond that Sanders opposed her. Which is what happens in a primary.
I have noted Sanders worked to support Clinton since before the national convention. He supported her at the national convention. He urged his supporters to get behind her at the national convention. He worked after the convention to support her with speeches. He never rallied his supporters to oppose her, he tried to rally them for her.
I asked if he had some control over “BernieBros” and got no answer. It is not even established if BerniesBros would have ever supported Clinton. Ever. A factions of Sanders supporters were never Clinton’s to have. Again, Sanders unfailingly tried to rally support for Clinton after he conceded.
Not to mention possible meddling by foreign powers (happened in 2020, might have in 2016).
And no one can point to any other politician in a similar place who worked for their opponent as much as Sanders did. And that after the party, literally and proved in court, cheated to keep him out.
And, Clinton herself said she would not support Sanders in 2020 if he won. That’s ok? Can you have it both ways?
So, unless you have something new other than aspersions to cast I won’t accept your assertions either.
And she walked that back and said she would support him. After unloading on Sanders, Hillary Clinton walks back not committing to him as nominee
Do you accept that “assertion”?
It’s not a fact: it’s a plausible conjecture. One I don’t agree with. Contrary to your claim neither Hillary nor Bernie ran attack ads against each other in 2016. Furthermore, Bernie always attacked Hillary from the left: he explicitly refused to get pulled into the email nonsense. Maserschmidt’s WAPO article doesn’t impress me: it says that Bernie campaigned for Hillary using his tried and true applause lines and it furthermore said that polling suggested that Hillary didn’t need his help anyway. Neither claim is especially damning.
Ralph Nader is a spoiler. Ted Kennedy squashed Nixon’s health care proposal because he thought he could do better. Bernie never spoiled elections and he never put a spike in incrementally improving Democratic proposals. I voted for Hillary in the 2016 primaries but was never especially concerned about Bernie. I did appreciate Bernie’s widening of the Overton Window - making all manner of socialist leaning proposals part of the national conversation.
Oh yeah, the OP. Sanders established the Congressional Progressive Caucus in 1991. In 2005 Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone called Sanders, “The Amendment King”:
Since the Republicans took over Congress in 1995, no other lawmaker – not Tom DeLay, not Nancy Pelosi – has passed more roll-call amendments (amendments that actually went to a vote on the floor) than Bernie Sanders. He accomplishes this on the one hand by being relentlessly active, and on the other by using his status as an Independent to form left-right coalitions.
Politics is the slow boring of hard boards. Incremental improvement is incremental, not always flashy. In 2005, Sanders successfully passed an amendment to the Patriot Act to, “limit funding for library and bookstore searches by a vote of 238–187, with thirty-eight Republicans joining 199 Democrats.” With that in hand, he offered an amendment to ban the practice outright. He lost that battle in the Republican led Rules Committee. Oh well. Something to fight over on another day.
That’s an example. Here’s the Rolling Stone article, which I got from Wiki:
Bernie wasn’t a mere showhorse. He was also a workhorse.