You’re apparently not even a Democrat, but a Green. So why should I care what you think about any of this?
Kerry? McGovern?
But it’s not blackmail, it’s the truth. It happened with Gore, and we got GWB for 8 years and a horrible evil war out of it.
The elections are too close to let the Far Left have it’s way. Clinton is pretty liberal, afterall, not much of a moderate.
The GOP has the House and the Senate, and even tho the Senate will likely be much closer after next election, there’s a 50-50 chance it wont be Democratic.
America simply can’t afford to let The GOP have the Oval office also. Especially with a nutcase like Trump or Cruz.
Cute “disguised” personal attack there, but you continue to bluster without providing evidence. All you guys say, over and over, is basically “duh, this is SOP, politics as usual”. But I have asked repeatedly for examples, and you have yet to provide any. Whereas I have cited 2008, 2004, and 1988 as cases when vanquished primary opponents united behind the Democratic nominee without extracting concessions on issues.
LHOD at least tacitly acknowledged that this is an unprecedented gambit, but essentially argued that it is okay, because Bernie is an unprecedented candidate. That is at least a defensible position. What is not, is the ahistorical claim that this kind of thing is standard practice in presidential politics.
It sounds like you’re really worried that the democratic party is going to suffer for being more progressive. You are living in the past.
Bernie is working hard for his victories and, has earned the right to a public acknowledgement of the interests of the people who are voting. He’s challenging the status quo by running and his demands reflect that.
And we keep telling you that this year will be exactly like most previous years and Sanders will get behind Clinton without extracting concessions on issues.
And no, it’s not unprecedented.
Bernie is not a Democrat. Why would he unconditionally “unite” behind the Democrat nominee? He doesn’t owe anything to the party. Yeah, Clinton was a Dem loyalist, so she toed the line behind Obama in 2008. What are they going to do to Bernie if he doesn’t endorse Clinton this time around? Kick him out of the party? Withhold support for his next Senate campaign?
He will do it because he will very much want Mrs. Clinton to win (I’m assuming he cares about the things he says he cares about).
No, that’s not my issue with it. First of all, the college tuition proposal is profoundly stupid and not even progressive. A $15/hr. nationwide minimum wage, without adjusting it for local cost of living (in my city, for instance, you can buy a small house–in good condition, not a fixer-upper–for $25K or less), is also ridiculous.
But the politics of these proposals is probably not too harmful. If, that is, she came up with them on her own (or appeared to). It’s being publicly dictated to that is fatal. No candidate can afford to look that weak, least of all one seeking to become the U.S.'s first ever female Commander in Chief.
Yeah, I assume he will, too. What I take issue with is the idea some posters have that he is obligated to. It’s not his party. If he doesn’t actually support Clinton, there is no reason for him to endorse her.
But I agree, he almost certainly will. If he doesn’t win the nomination, that is. 
That is very interesting. McCarthy was the clearest precursor to Bernie: he had idealistic youthful supporters who filled stadiums for him and he ultimately could not defeat the establishment guy.
I do think it’s pretty funny that after repeated protestations that this was just standard operating procedure and politics as usual, someone finally found a precedent from a half-century ago, of an attempt to do something like thi…which was rebuffed by the nominee, as it had to be…all leading to his narrow loss to Richard Nixon four years after Democrats had a massive landslide.
Awesome precedent to follow!
Don’t you think Mrs. Clinton knows this too?
Oh, I prefer Stein to Hillary, I go on policy. I am a progressive indie voter … you know, the golden prize among voters.
Talk about things that make me angry. This idea that Bernie has no obligation to the party, when they provided him with ballot access, access to the data which built his fundraising base, participation in debates, it cetera. The gall of that is, well, galling.
The elections are ALWAYS too close to let anyone but Dem centrists have their way. And the current Republican boogeyman is always the Worst Thing Evah. Sorry, you’ve got no cred any more.
Translation: “boogah! boogah!”
If you’re so awfully scared of a Republican victory, seems like you’d be a LOT more willing to deal. But given that you’re not …
Of course. Which is why, just like Humphrey, she cannot give in to this demand. Which likely then leads to a similar thing with McCarthy where only the most grudging and tepid endorsement is given. Or if not, it makes Bernie look weak and foolish if he is rebuffed and then gives a full-throated endorsement anyway. Just a bad deal all around.
Hold up, dude. I did no such thing. I don’t give a crap about precedent here; I just pointed out that this is a weird year. Given that the entire premise of the OP is false, and that’s what I’ve taken great pains to point out, don’t try to act like I’m saying your false premise is okay.
You keep confusing the Democratic party with Hillary Clinton.
I’d vote for Bernie without hesitation if he got the nomination. I might even support him getting the nomination. However, if he doesn’t, the current Republican boogeymen are way to dangerous to throw away a vote on an otherwise attractive third party candidate. As Bill Maher explained last week, Cruz would be the worst President the country ever had, and Trump might be the last.
You know, that whole fealty thing is pretty patriarchal.
Fealty Bern!