He’s running for its nomination. The obligations are mutual enough that yes, it’s his party. It certainly is the only means he has to accomplish anything he says he wants, even if he hasn’t actually done much about it.
Only if he believes in something bigger than himself.
We already knew that. We did not know he thinks the superdelegates can be dissuaded from their delusions otherwise, the popular vote notwithstanding. What’s new is that he is showing a willingness to go around the democratic process if it produces a nominee other than him.
Why would what Hillary did after she conceded in June 2008 have any bearing on the current situation? Do you have a cite for where Hillary Clinton discussed in March 2008 or prior what would happen after she lost the nomination to Barack Obama? i.e., do you have any relevant examples?
No, you continue to demonstrate that you don’t understand what a party is or how a party’s nomination process works. The expectation is that various candidates who are members of the party contest the nomination with each other, with the understanding that the losers will not be sore losers but will then unite behind the nominee.
Any party worth its salt and possessing a backbone will not knowingly allow interlopers to contest for a nomination, while availing themselves of party resources like databases and nationally televised debates, if they are not willing to be part of this social contract. For Bernie to knowingly act as a free rider and take advantage of all he can get for himself from the Democratic Party, without any reciprocity, is pure parasitism and would, frankly, be despicable. So I hope that you are wrong about his attitude toward, and relationship with, the Democratic Party, but I fear you are not.
As I have said, I find arguing with people about the plain meaning of their own words extremely tedious. However, I will paste the relevant part of the conversation as evidence for my interpretation, since you have a number of posts in this relatively long thread. If you wish to tie yourself up in a knot with some tortured explanation of how that doesn’t mean what it obviously means, knock yourself out but I have nothing further to say about it.
You quoted ElvisL1ves:
You responded:
I then very reasonably characterized your position as follows:
I rest my case.
The whole point of superdelegates is to get around the democratic process if necessary so why cry about him trying to use it?
Good. That case is pretty tired. I was dismissing a dumb point, not conceding anything. Again, the main point that I’ve emphasized repeatedly is that the OP is ridiculous hyperbolic misinterpretation of reality. Don’t pretend that I’ve given any concession to its absurdity.
No one made Bernie say something so stupid. There are no citations of what Hillary said about this in March 2008 because she knew better.
Then what DID Hillary say in March 2008 when she was asked about whether she’d direct her followers to throw their full support to Obama if he won? What did Edwards say, when asked the same question in February 2004? What about Bill Bradley in February 2000? Since you’re all about precedent, show us the precedent.
Because it has been the position of people within the Bernie camp for many months that to use superdelegates that way, which we should note has never happened, would be wrong.
And there is a pattern with comments like this that I find hypocritical or at least mighty convenient. Bernheads love to run against “politics as usual” and style themselves and their man as being above the usual political games and what they see as a corrupt system. Bernie, they claim, just tells it like it is, and doesn’t play games with the truth or flip flop or hedge or sit on the fence with his finger in the wind. Certainly Bernie doesn’t use double standards depending on whether something would help him now that he thought was going to go against him before. :dubious:
But then again and again, when it is pointed out that Bernie actually does play the usual disingenuous political games that other politicians do, Bernheads defensively retort “so what, Hillary does it, this is just politics”. Which would be fine if they weren’t selling him, his fundamental brand, as something different from that. Robert Reich has famously said over and over that if you want a politician to manage the system we have, Hillary is great for that. But if you want somebody completely different who doesn’t play by the usual rules, we need Bernie.
So you guys need to make up your minds, because you can’t have it both ways. Or if you do try to have it both ways, you have most definitely come down on the side of politics as usual, and you have no right to claim to be something different or special, above the muck.
LHOD, you should ask someone with a LexisNexis subscription if you want an actual answer to that. My hunch would be that she said what party politicians normally say, which is “I intend to be the nominee, but I will be supporting the party’s nominee regardless, as I always do.”
Now, there are people in this thread who say this should not apply to Bernie because he is not really a Democrat. Which, if true, again, means that he should not have been given access to the data that he built his huge fundraising machine on.
So I would say that he is either a parasitic con man who has been playing the Democratic Party for suckers; or more charitably, that being new to major party politics, he didn’t understand what he was supposed to say there. Time will tell.
Dude, you’re sayin’ it over and over agin doan make it any more true. I heard the show, Chuck Todd heard the show, the HuffPo writers heard the show, and we all heard that he would “demand” those policy conditions. Now he’s since stated that no he’s not sayin’ that he will make demands and that he is not sayin’ he won’t. Fine. I can move on. But he did state his list of desired policies (e.g. Medicare for all, fifteen bucks an hour, free college in public universities…) and concluded listing them with “These are some of the demands I would make.” That is the exact quote. Now it was a long interview and the man can ramble, so maybe he indeed said something that he did not really exactly mean. That can be excused. Happens to all of us. But stop saying that he did not say something he said.
Seriously the your post is your cite stuff is not very valuable.
A “demand” is not a “request” or an “ask” and Sanders speaks the language well enough to know that.
Yes he can like McGovern make demands when the time comes but if that push does come to shove it would be idiotic for Clinton to pander to them. Thinking about it it would serve her better to publicly state that she will not alter her views to get Sanders blessing, that she remains steadfast in her belief that ObamaCare for example is a good system that can be built on and improved upon and that such is a better tactic moving forward than trying to replace the developing system with Medicare for all. Such is her authentic self and energizes the parts of the base that frankly matter even more than White middle class Millennials, most of whom will either vote for her or not with no regard to what Sanders asks them to do. It also makes her more appealing to no small number of those many other Whites who went for Romney but who are very uncomfortable with Trump. Pandering for Sanders support however would not.
LOHD to the best of my searching ability Clinton was never asked, and likely because there was never any doubt that she would at least officially support Obama if he won. The strength of her support, the lengths she went to to work for his victory and to facilitate healing after her concession was unexpected, but no one even questioned that she would endorse him if he won.
The closest I can find is just before she endorsed him and what is noteworthy is the lack of any public demand or even ask.
You guys? I am not a Bernie booster. I am fine with him playing political gamesmanship. You are the one who’s repeatedly shown joy in utterly cynical campaigning. Guys like you should be applauding Sanders’ embrace of flipflop and muck diving. What gives?
As I said, he is welcome to play in that muck, but if he does, he forfeits the right to act holier-than-thou toward Hillary.
No he doesn’t. Most of his holier than thou foundation is his financing and how beholden she is to big business. Besides, if it’s working he doesn’t have to stop because some internet Clintonista cries hypocrisy.
It is definitely amusing to see Bernie being defended in such a cynical way. If he were winning, it would be crazymaking.
Only, Sanders is not threatening riots. He is only threatening to withhold an endorsement which he is in no way obligated to give. Not feelin’ the outrage. To put it mildly. :rolleyes:
You know the thing about Sanders, he’s got… lifeless eyes, black eyes, like a doll’s eye.
But neither is the loser obliged to endorse the winner. Putting conditions on such endorsement is perfectly fair.
:dubious: There is nothing cynical about it whatsoever, and it is not amusing to see you spout such cynical and shameless bullshit.
Ten years from now, the biggest effect of Bernie’s campaign will be the small donor financing. What if Citizen’s United doesn’t even matter any more? What if the Republican advantage in financing evaporated? It may already be happening, remember how they spent 40 megabucks to get Jeb(!) some momentum, and it went poof!
Maybe just a flash of hope in the darkening, but maybe not. “Power to the people.” What a concept! I like it!