Tom has enough command of the language to know the difference. He can speak for himself.
Got a comparative example from recent history to show us, by way of illustration? :dubious:
No response possible there but a pat on the head.
Sure. Every single time in American history that a democratic socialist has campaigned for president under the Democratic label, things have played out exactly this way.
This campaign is a bit different from historical comparisons.
Give us the name of a loser from recent history who has successfully extorted the winner. And no more of this “this time is different” nonsense. C’mon now.
Examples of losers who chose the petty and destructive way to exit include Reagan in 1976 and Kennedy in 1980, and both came very much closer to winning their nominations than Sanders will. But all they succeeded in doing was damaging their party’s nominees to the point where they lost.
The choice of method of exit applies to a candidate’s *supporters *too, btw, not just the candidate. Something to think about.
Treating politics like a game leads to terrible decisions.
Look, I’ve been around the block a few times. I know I’ll be putting that clothespin on my nose and voting for Clinton come November, I’ve got the clothespin ready. But if you actually want most of Sanders’s supporters to vote for Clinton in November, what you’re doing–sneering at them and calling them names–is mightily counterproductive. Your strategy here and elsewhere on the SDMB could not possibly give greater comfort to Trump.
I encourage Sanders to exit gracefully come June and throw his support behind Clinton. At the same time, his supporters’ support must be gained strategically and intelligently. The DNC has as one of its great weaknesses a sense of entitlement to everyone’s votes and a furious contempt for anyone who won’t vote for them; I hope they don’t fall into the same error you and Slacker fall into on these boards, of thinking that insulting and alienating people is the best way to win them over to your cause.
Why would a candidate indicate support for their opponent in the middle of the campaign? I was annoyed when I heard what Bernie said, but I will save judgement for what he actually does after July. It would be stupid of him to criticize Clinton’s platform and then say he would give unconditional support to her if she were to win the nomination.
The Republicans had a very hard time saying they would support the Republican nominee even though they signed an agreement to do so.
Not true. Every Bernhead I know personally (and I know a great many, including my mother) has said they will vote for Hillary in the fall if she wins the nomination. Some of them throw in the requisite verbiage about “nose holding”, while others say they will be perfectly happy to support her against any Republican–they just like Bernie better.
I see some “friends of friends” on Facebook talking about sitting it out or voting Jill Stein, and I’m sure there are some like that here. But I’d also be willing to bet that most of the Bernie supporters here plan to vote for the Democratic nominee in the fall. So your “She doesn’t have those votes regardless of what Sanders says” line is a ludicrous overstatement.
Furthermore, I do believe that, especially because Sanders’s following is so young and passionate, there are more than a few whom he could persuade to vote or not vote for Hillary by either vigorously endorsing her or refusing to do so.
So you’re basically admitting that the folks running the DNC were naive, suckers really, to open up their database for him to pillage while he vampirically built up his brand without giving anything back to the party. Got it.
This is so fascinating to kind of slow down and unpack. If Bernie supporters and Hillary supporters were seen as being on equal footing, there might be an expectation of more concern that Bernheads are *terrible *by this measure. There is *far *more excoriation of Hillary on social media than vice versa.
But you know what I read between these lines? (You are welcome to dispute my reading, and I’m 89% sure you will.) That it’s not just in calendar year terms that Hillary backers are the wise adults in the room, while the Bernheads are impetuous, hotheaded youngsters who need to be carefully managed. We mature Clintonistas should be able to “rise above” and not let all the hot anti-Hillary rhetoric bother us. Like special education teachers, we have to shake off the insults and respond with patience and compassion.
And I can actually see the wisdom of this counsel! But I can’t resist pointing out its interesting (and perhaps unintended, at least consciously) implications. :dubious:
ETA:
But that’s because they have such an extreme insurgent as frontrunner. Hillary is not that by any stretch of the imagination. And they still did say they would support the nominee. In past elections, they (and the same on the Democratic side) simply said “yes, I intend to win the nomination but I will support the nominee regardless”. That’s what being in a party is about. Bernie is just using, rather than joining, the Democratic Party, is the problem.
That has so little to do with what I wrote that I wonder if you accidentally ran it back and forth through a translator program a few dozen times.
Yeah. And if you were on my Facebook feed, you’d see me repeatedly telling Sanders supporters to knock it the hell off as well. But you’re here, and this time you’re the culprit, so you hear me telling you to knock it off.
As for your silly little whines about how Poopypants Boogereater Bernheads are the real immature ones, I’ll let the irony of that stand on its own :).
That’s the funniest thing I’ve read all month.
The “loser” gets to negotiate whatever he is able to and the “winner” gets to accept as much or as little as he thinks is prudent to get keep the “loser’s” supporters on board.
It’s not Tom’s fault if sometimes someone says something so utterly absurd that the only appropriate response is laughter.
This whole idea is the most amazingly silly thing I’ve seen recently. Sanders represents a massive section of the Democratic electorate. Not a majority, true, but a lot of people. There’s nothing unreasonable about expecting the eventual nominee to actually earn the support of those people. And there’s nothing noteworthy about Sanders saying so. This is completely ordinary political maneuvering. Nothing to see here. Move along. Seriously, take that ‘Mt. Catastrophe!’ sign out of that molehill - it’s blocking traffic.
I won’t support or vote for Clinton unless she changes her policies, too. Does that make me guilty of extortion?
No. just pettiness. It makes you “guilty” of preferring Trump to Clinton as President.
Well, the OP specifically said “extortion”. Did he mean to just accuse Sanders of pettiness?
It’s only that if the issue is still undecided. Is it really? And, if it isn’t, what will change in Sanders’ stance when it does get to that point?
Not stupid, just realistic, although that cannot be a given in his case. Look at the alternative.
Example? :dubious:
Projection.
Just say “President Clinton or President Trump?” It isn’t hard.
More projection.
Ben Carson has an MD, and he thinks the pyramids were grain warehouses. Nuff Said.
So I just watched the Young Turks excerpt, and I think the OP is pretty dramatically far afield from what Sanders was asked and what he answered.
The question wasn’t, what will it take to earn an endorsement? The question was, “If you were to lose, and the Democratic establishment comes to you and says, take this movement that is full of energy and is against the establishment, and make sure they vote for the establishment candidate, what do you say?”
Elvis’s objection earlier to “directing” Sanders supporters is echoed in what Sanders says: “Number one, I’m not big into being a leader, I much prefer to see a lot of leaders and a lot of grassroots activism.” In other words, he’s not able to make sure they vote for the establishment candidate. He can’t flip that switch.
The rest of his answer is a bit rambling, but its message seems to be, if you want the votes of all these progressive activists, you should show that you’re progressive, you should stand up for progressive causes.
Now, sure, he could have said, “I’ll go the fear route. I’ll tell the DNC that they should not worry about progressive issues, they should do nothing to make themselves more appealing to progressives, they should put all their energy into threatening progressives with visions of a Trump presidency.” Slacker, is that what you think he should have said? Is that what you want progressives to say to the DNC?
If so, I’m afraid we’re gonna disagree. Me, I want progressives to push the DNC hard to take more progressive stands on issues. I want progressives to push the DNC hard to stop abandoning the South, and instead to work in all 50 states to take back state legislatures and governorships. I want progressives to stand up for progressive values.
And that’s exactly what Sanders’s rambling answer said, and that’s what you characterize as “extortion.” Anything short of saying, “I’ll tell progressives who voted for me to shut up and vote for Clinton” appears to be some sort of backhanded support for Trump, to you.
And that’s baloney.
I am reminded of how political conversations with you inevitably go, and will bow out of that particular one.
“Directing” is Tom’s word choice, not the OP’s or mine or anyone else’s AFAICT.
“Supporting Trump” is *your *accusation about me. :rolleyes:
And no examples at all of me saying what you claimed I said, in your previous post.
Gotta do better than that here.
We’re not talking about “them”. I have no more hope of corralling progressives writ large than of becoming a professional cat herder. We are talking about Bernie Sanders here. And what I want *him *to say is something like:
Add the standard finishing flourishes and that works for me.
*I, SlackerInc, *support *the Citizens United decision; but I’m talking about the proper political appeal here.
Well, he did make her secretary of state. So there’s that.
As for your general position in this thread, I think the real question is not what Bernie says he will do in a hypothetical future while he’s still trying to win the nomination. If Clinton does eventually win the nomination (as seems likely but not certain), it’s reasonable to judge how he acts then. But it would be ridiculous for him to effectively concede defeat at this point by starting to treat Hillary as the presumptive nominee.