She considers you similar to those black folks who just aren’t bright enough to vote for their best interests. President Bernie will wave his wand & magically convince Congress to pass all his excellent ideas!
Thanks for at least correcting “the demands I would make” to what he actually said (“the demands we would make”).
It’s no less reasonable to interpret Sanders’ answers to both questions as referring to what Clinton would have to do in order to win the votes of the progressive movement. He explicitly frames his answer in those terms, and makes no reference to endorsing, or not endorsing, Clinton (which is not something he was asked about, notably). Instead, in typical Sanders fashion, he eschews the horse-race discussion to talk about the issues that are important to progressives.
You’re free to assume the most negative interpretation possible of Sanders’ words in order to craft a stick to beat him with; others are equally free to call you out on it.
Sanders answered both questions.
When has Sanders “explicitly refused to commit to supporting the nominee of the party if it is not him”?
And all those laws and programs will magically fix cultural issues around socio-economic status, sexism and racism.
And no one will ever die, for God-King Sanders will transform us into beings of pure energy, peace, and love!
Do I win the straw-man contest?
I’m not going to search through the whole video again. I accept that he may have said that and that to me a candidate saying “We” in the context of answering a “what will you ask for?” question is the standard royal we of politician speak and of their team. You think he is answering a “you” question and meaning something else? Fine. You heard it that way. You are free to filter and interpret what he clearly said in the least unappealing way possible . And yes I am free call you out on it.
And here I guess to say “Bwahahaha” as a meaningful contribution: BWAHAHAHA! 
In the Chuck Todd interview where he was asked explicitly, more than one time, if there would be conditions for his support of Clinton and explicitly refused to answer the question, refused, when asked, to make any such commitment to support her without having demands met: “… it’s too early to talk about that …”
The silliness of the evasions here is getting the point that Bill’s old “what the meaning of is is …” should start to be called his having been Sandersesque!
Again, there is a reason that H.R. Clinton was never asked that question in '08: there was never any question in anyone’s minds that she would support Obama if he won. The strength and magnitude of her support and effort was amazing and perhaps more than expected, (certainly more than I had expected as an Obama supporter) but her support was a given.
With Sanders there IS reason to question whether or not he will. He is not someone who has identified as a Democrat; he has explicitly not. His supporters and detractors alike both include those who think he has no allegiance to anything other than the principles of what he calls democratic socialism and advancing them, perhaps at any cost, with the possible exception of compromise. Some of his supporters have stated explicitly that they would see his support of Clinton as a betrayal to the revolution for which he, in their minds, stands.
He was asked for the same reason that Trump was asked, and that in the other GOP candidates are being asked now. Because enough people are unsure what the answer is. Because some non-zero number are wavering about whether or not they will indeed vote Clinton (hypothetically assuming she is the nominee) or stay home, and would be influenced by both his support and the perceived strength of that support.
Some of his supporters believe that using Tea Party approaches and threatening, even delivering, on staying home, if they do not get what they feel are adequate concessions after having lost, is a good idea. That advancing the agenda is all that matters at any potential cost. I have said elsewhere in this forum and state it again here: that to me is extremism and such extremism must be identified as such and vilified as such.
No, they do not owe anything to anyone but there are consequences of even passive-aggressive hostility. In this case three I can think of … One possibility is of course the improbable Trump or Cruz win which could have been prevented. (“Not my fault that the rest of you wouldn’t do it my way and choose my ideal candidate.”) The second is in the case of a narrow Clinton win. In that case the likely prospect is that those items of Sanders’ agenda that are not shared by Clinton will be diminished as she will, out of necessity, need to appeal to a greater degree to disaffected GOP-leaners to win and compromise more with GOP Congresscritters and there is less of a chance to have the wave election and mandate that strengthens the left of center position. The third is in the case of an overwhelming Clinton win despite the lack of Sanders core supporters - in that case they have shown they are of no matter and are owed nothing.
Super delegates should vote for the candidate who won their state’s caucus. Wouldn’t mind them voting in proportion to the candidates based on what percentage of the state voted/caucused for which candidate. Does this make super delegates pointless? Yes, I hope so. I don’t think they should exist.
I don’t think he has done so. As said above, both candidates are behaving much better than their supporters.
Sanders in November:
Yup, that was his tone in November. He has changed it since. Again in Flint Clinton went there, saying the same thing about the gulf between the two of them is minor compared to what we see on the GOP side and set him up to say it again, and he pointedly did not and instead implied that Clinton was owned by Big Money.
Susan Sarandon exemplifies what his current tone helps foster, as discussed here by Charles Blow.
I don’t think either camp wants candidates judged by the quality of their supporters’ arguments and statements. Because dayum.
He 100% said “we”.
And yes, the second question in that exchange was “What are the policy positions you would want?”…but Sanders had answered the first question by framing it in terms of the progressive movement, as opposed his personal leadership, and I think he answered the second question in that same context, and it’s never presented as a demand or condition for Sanders’ personal support. His remarks to Chuck Todd seem to back that up, though of course it came later.
This may or may not shock you, but I don’t read it that way. He explicitly rejects Todd’s suggestion that his support for Clinton is conditional on the policy positions he laid out in the Young Turks interview. He says “No it’s not” and “No, no” to that idea, and Todd keeps asking anyway for reasons that are not clear, and then Sanders reinforces that he’s in it to win it, and then the interview is over.
Caucuses are un-democratic. It gives the vote only to those who can take all day off, not have to work or raise kids or …
Note that in the popular vote, Hilary has 8,924,821 votes and Bernie only 6,397,980. with Clinton leading by +2,526,841…
Yes, Superdelegates are also
Yes, Superdelegates are also undemocratic, but caucuses are just as bad.
Total agreement. It’s such a complex problem, and so far no one has been able to come up with solutions that really work. The whole quota thing has been proven to have more negative than positive effects.
Costs need to be controlled (from insurance to pharmaceuticals to other related industries), which is a huge Gordian knot in itself primarily dealing with free trade. Once again, an issue that isn’t amenable to simple solutions.
No it does not shock me but you are imagining things.
Did you say that you would make demands? No that is a misunderstanding, I did not exactly say that.
WILL your support depend on demands being met, if you lose? Refusal to answer x2.
You choose to to not understand the difference between the first and the second question. That says something about you and your filter but the meaning is very clear.
Yet the mindset is implicit in the self-chosen identification of “Bernie or Bust.”
He has chosen to change his path from that November tone to one that fosters that mindset.
You’ve claimed that no one would have asked such a question in 2008 of Hillary Clinton because it was so obvious she would support Obama. But tons of Clinton supporters in 2008 said the same thing. They weren’t going to vote for Obama. Was that Clinton’s fault? Did she have a “tone” that caused it? Or do people just get fired up and start acting like fools?
All I’m doing is referring to what was said, as opposing to making assumptions about hidden meanings.
Sanders said “No” twice, to the question of whether there were parameters for his support, and to the question of whether he’d choose not to support Clinton if she didn’t back single-payer. I’m not going to fault the guy for saying “No” twice to the same question, then brushing it off when the same question is asked two more times, instead taking that time to emphasize that he plans on winning and mooting the whole thing.
Sanders has real flaws as a candidate, in my opinion, not least of which is this:
[
If anyone is ever curious why superdelegates aren’t supporting him, this is at least one reason why.
No, that is not why.
Sanders has always caucused with, campaigned for, and raised money for Democrats. Many of the people who have endorsed Clinton had no problem accepting money from him through the years. In fact, they try to use that fundraising against him since he has come out against this focus on big dollar fundraising. Very easy to google the info, but here are two [URL=“http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/bernie-sanders-pac-funded-democratic-party-establishment-2304455”]recent](Sanders: ‘We’ll See’ If I Will Fundraise For Down-Ballot Democrats (VIDEO) - TPM – Talking Points Memo) articles.
They are not supporting him because he went against their plan to clear the path for HRC. With all this talk of what losing candidates demand, no one mentions that Obama not only tapped his donors to pay off HRC’s 2008 campaign debt, but to raise a cushion for this year’s campaign. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz - HRC’s 2008 co-chair - was given the position of DNC chair by Obama. HRC’s victory fund was planned and established well in advance of her announcing, and this was well known in the party. That fundraising was a clear signal to anyone else in the party considering a run. Why do you think no other major establishment Democrats decided to run this year?
Maybe you agree with this type of thing; I know some party hacks who do, or accept it as SOP. Today HRC is in NY, hosted by Rep. Nita Lowey, who was shut out of the NY Senate run when HRC decided it was the perfect stepping stone to further her career. A lifelong NY Dem was passed over so a woman who had never held office, lived or paid taxes in NY could run for Moynihan’s Senate seat. Do you really believe the NY Dems were happy about that? But the Clinton machine was and is formidable, and you go against them at your peril.