So if 9 million Bernie supporters are pissed off, you think that 12 million Hillary supporters are just going to roll over? In 2008 she won the popular vote, lost on delegates and did the classy thing and backed down. Now she has the delegates and the popular vote and you want her to make concessions? Of course, if the tables were turned and Sanders had three million more votes and 11% more pledged delegates, he’d be willing to drop minimum wage down to $10 and make some concessions to business because that’s whats important to Hillary and her supporters. :rolleyes:
Why not? Obama made concessions to her in 2008. She got to be Secretary of State.
And yes, I assume in the reverse situation, Sanders would definitely be looking to accommodate her to some degree.
Clinton can, should, and will make some concessions to Bernie. At some point they’ll sit down, and they’ll come to an agreement, which may involve policy positions, cabinet nominees, and maybe even a VP pick (probably not for Bernie, but maybe for someone Bernie-approved), and they’ll move forward together with Bernie’s enthusiastic support.
IIRC, Clinton wasn’t offered the position of Secretary of State until closer to the general election. Definitely not before the Democratic Convention.
In part because one of Hillary’s faults is she doesn’t make empty promises.
Now, a cabinet position - yeah, I could see that - although not if he goes to a floor fight. A VP pick - probably not - she’s going to woo right (or at least centrist) to get the disaffected republicans and she doesn’t need the Hispanic male with Trump.
Were you privy to the conversations between Obama and Clinton that June? Me neither, but the people I know who work in Washington take it as absolutely given that the appointment was directly related to those conversations.
From all accounts, when Obama offered her the position in November 2008, she wasn’t entirely sure she wanted it at first:
I just wish they would have a real and open debate about the proper direction. TYT crowd is radically hostile to Clinton and ultra pro Bernie. But they tend to just filibuster with their views with no real pushback, and vice versa. These two sides need to hash things out.
The book Game Change says the same thing. She was surprised to be offered it, almost turned it down; Obama said he really wanted her. It’s a pretty well sourced book. They’re very good about getting past the “official” stories and telling what really happened – I’d be surprised if they got this one wrong.
That’s about the public offer of the specific job. Of course that came after Election Day. But you really think that wasn’t long preceded by an understanding that she would have some plum administration post?
Yes.
Echo the "yes’. As noted, it’s has been something that’s widely been reported. In addition, if you negotiate for a “plum” administration post, why in the world would you be taken aback and need some time to think about it when you are offered the plum-est of all possible administration posts?
Of course Sanders might have to make some successions to Hillary voters to get their success if he wins. Same with Hillary.
It should be noted that when Hillary finally conceded to Obama in 2008 the delegate gap between the two of them was less than the current gap between Sanders and Clinton.
Sanders is not well known for making concessions.
Clinton does want to have the support of even those Sanders supporters who are true believers that a revolution is needed. She has indeed moved some during the campaign to do so and her criticism of Sanders was always extremely kid glove soft out of a desire to be able to win them fully over later (with Sanders hoped for help).
Thing is that some of that socialist revolution core fool themselves into thinking they are more powerful and more numerous than they are. Sanders got a moderate number of usual non-voters to the polls and caucuses. He got support from some usual voters who, given a choice between two candidates who they pretty much agreed with on most things, preferred the one promising to be differenter, and maybe get them personally more. All together they still were a minority of those who voted even restricting to only open primaries. Given that of all Democratic voters approval of Obama’s (incremental, pragmatic) performance is over 80%, that Millennials are the most likely of all age groups to rate him highly, a fair number of those voting for Sanders are fine with that non-revolutionary approach.
There in fact is no sudden outpouring of support for a socialist revolution. Nice that he’s re-labelled the lefter side of Democratic economic liberalism as democratic socialism but the reality remains that most of those who voted in the primaries prefer continuing the pragmatic incremental course that Obama has us on, preferably with less obstruction in Congress, to revolution.
Clinton cannot and will not make concessions that go against what the majority who have voted have stated they want by voting for her and her stated positions.
And realize that overall America believes in capitalism. We believe it needs regulation and oversight. We believe that we need to take care of each other. We believe that we need to remove the barriers that some groups have more than others. We believe that we are stronger together if we get every American to be able to achieve his and her very best.
Clinton does not win a general election by moving hard into the socialist (democratic socialist or otherwise) camp. She wins by embracing free enterprise, aligning with the stories of people making it in this country by way of their entrepreneurship, building their small businesses into bigger ones. And by arguing for the sorts of regulations and oversight that allows these start-ups, and all of us, a fair playing field. Doing something, actually doing something about the hollowing out of the middle class and about the problem of dramatically increasing wealth inequality, is a winning message. The general election voting pool will be more receptive to growing opportunities, supporting small business, and eliminating unfair advantages for Big Business by proper oversight and regulation, than it will be to the rhetorical posturing of socialist revolution.
A few Evil Captors, doorhinges and maybe BGs stay home as a result? Meh. They would be unlikely to come out to vote for Clinton no matter what additional concessions she made anyway. If they do not realize the danger to the country and the world with Trump as president instead of Clinton (and more of the, to some progressives’ POV, same sort of disappointing performance that Obama gave), if they cannot commit to the good that a non-obstructionist Congress would be, then there is no hope for them anyway.
Bullshit. He’s been very successful at getting legislation passed as a Senator, and you can’t do that without horse trading. There may be certain issues he won’t concede on, but that’s true of almost any politician.
I’d vote for her if she made the right concessions. Problem is, my primary concern is economic issues, and Clinton is in hock big time to Wall Street, so she is unlikely to make the concessions that would win me over. Appointing Elizabeth Warren as Treasury Secretary, for example, might do the trick. Of course, it’s possible Warren would not take the job, but some other progressive with a good track record on fighting against Wall Street and for the middle class would do the trick.
Not holding my breath waiting for it to happen. A shame, I’ve heard speculation that even Georgia might be in play in this election, given how unhappy many Republicans are with Trump. The rural Republicans will stick it out for Trump as he is the most bigoted, stupid candidate out there, but I suspect the more affluent urban and suburban Republicans might just vote for Hillary.
She wouldn’t appoint her cabinet until after the election. So you won’t know what she will do or won’t do. But I don’t see the Democrats pulling anyone out of the Senate.
We do know she won’t pick Scott Walker to be her Treasury Secretary.
We covered this, and actually,* no he hasn’t. *