home

Bernie's California Timetable

According to this Yahoo News article, Bernie Sanders gave the clear impression today his campaign will only last through the California primary, not to the convention. On ABC's This Week:

“We intend to take the fight all the way to California,” Sanders said on ABC’s “This Week With George Stephanopoulos,” “so people throughout this country have a right to determine who they want as president and what kind of agenda they want for the Democratic Party.”

On Meet the Press:

“We are in this race. We are not writing our obituary. We’re in this race to California,” he said, before letting a tense change slip. “And we’re proud of the campaign we ran.”

He still thinks he can win. And in case there was still any doubt, he's not catering to Democrats [More...]

“What polls seem to be showing is that many of the states yet to come — including California, our largest state — we have a real shot to win. And I think, also, there are a lot of delegates out there who are looking at the general matchup, and what they’re seeing in polls is that Bernie Sanders is running a lot stronger against Donald Trump than is Hillary Clinton, because we can appeal to a lot of independents and people, not just the Democrats.”

On CNN's State of the Nation, he went a bit further, looking ahead to California and the District of Colombia:

[W]e’re going to fight for every last vote until the California and the D.C. primary.”

Really? The D.C. primary is not until June 14.

He can fight till the cows come home for all I care, but he needs to run on a third party ticket. The Democratic nominee should reflect the values of Democrats, not just his own values. His independent supporters have no cause for complaint about the "will of the people." The Demomcratic party nominee is not supposed to reflect the will of all people, just Democrats. Bernie makes it clearer every day he is not a Democrat.

Update: Five states have primaries on Tuesday. If Hillary takes 4 of the 5, Bernie's chances may go from miniscule to none. bq. Clinton hoped Tuesday's contests in Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Maryland and Delaware would mark a turning point in her quest for the Democratic nomination. Victories in four or five states would all but cripple Sanders' White House bid.

< Friday Night Open Thread: Happy Passover | Sunday Night TV and Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    More fun with numbers (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by CoralGables on Mon Apr 25, 2016 at 02:21:37 PM EST
    If Clinton hits her RCP projected margin of victory tomorrow in Pennsylvania, Maryland and Connecticut, every voter in Delaware and Rhode Island could vote for Sanders and Sanders would still fall further behind.

    He's staying in it (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by smott on Mon Apr 25, 2016 at 03:13:13 PM EST
    He's staying in.

    The only question is how much damage he will do and how the down ticket races will be affected.

    What a typical circular firing squad, in a year Dems could make so much progress vs the cluster f*** on the other side of the aisle.

    Thanks, Ralph.

    Parent

    Bernie Sanders accidentally explained (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Apr 25, 2016 at 08:25:35 PM EST
    why his political revolution has failed.

    "Poor people don't vote," he said in an interview with Meet the Press on Sunday. "It's just a fact."

    He's right. It is a fact, and it's an important truth of American politics. But he didn't appear to recognize the implications. The fact that poor people don't vote [at anywhere near the rates their richer counterparts do], including for Bernie Sanders, proves that his campaign's theory of winning hasn't worked for them. Politically speaking, Sanders has identified the importance of the fact that "poor people don't vote" -- but he's not going to be the one to make them do it.



    It's a systemic problem (none / 0) (#40)
    by Steve13209 on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 08:34:13 AM EST
    not a problem with Sanders' message. Let's have automatic voter registration and an Election Day holiday and maybe that will help allow more people to vote.

    Parent
    How do (none / 0) (#42)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 08:54:15 AM EST
    you know it's not his message? His health care plan would raise the taxes of the poor from what I have read.

    But I'm not sure anything is going to get more people to vote. I think the reason so many people don't vote is the "both parties are the same" rhetoric has been one of the most effective things in getting people to stay home. I mean if they're the same then it doesn't matter who wins does it?

    Parent

    Many poor people (none / 0) (#44)
    by Steve13209 on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 09:13:37 AM EST
    don't have the time and resources to follow politics, get a photo ID and take time away from work to vote.

    If you think Sander's message is that poor people will need to pay more for health coverage, then you are really not paying attention.

    Parent

    It's really hard for poor people (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by jbindc on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 09:23:39 AM EST
    To attend caucuses, yet I don't see him advocating doing away with those.  I wonder why....?

    Parent
    Bernie (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 09:29:56 AM EST
    has spent millions upon millions on TV ads. Nobody is missing his message. He got routed in the poorest state in the union MS. They are getting his message. They just don't like his message. I can tell you that from living in GA.

    Parent
    No, he's making a faulty assumption, (none / 0) (#43)
    by ExPatObserver on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 09:11:09 AM EST
    which is that poor people will vote for him, given the chance.

    Parent
    the assumption, yes (none / 0) (#45)
    by Steve13209 on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 09:14:36 AM EST
    faulty? There's no way to know, is there? :)

    Parent
    exit polls suggest (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by CST on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 09:16:30 AM EST
    That the poor people who do vote, are voting for Hillary.  He tends to win the working class vote, but she tends to wins the poor.

    Parent
    Of coures there is (none / 0) (#55)
    by ExPatObserver on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 09:23:31 AM EST
    And if it's not possible to know, why make the statement.

    Parent
    Yes there is a way (none / 0) (#64)
    by CoralGables on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 10:31:57 AM EST
    He's getting slaughtered in the popular vote. So if his message is for those that don't vote to vote for him, his message has failed to get them to vote.

    Parent
    Unprovable assumption then (none / 0) (#69)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 12:30:00 PM EST
    Certainly not an assumption I'd be using to explain my losing numbers.

    Parent
    Yeah, I'm not sure (none / 0) (#73)
    by Steve13209 on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 05:08:32 PM EST
    what he was doing with that comment actually. It doesn't help much. Chalk it up to exhaustion?

    Parent
    He's exhausted now? He should ask Obama (none / 0) (#84)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 08:47:19 PM EST
    how much sleep he gets.

    Parent
    Jane is ready and waiting (none / 0) (#85)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 08:53:52 PM EST
    To step into the Oval Office if she is needed.

    Parent
    Sanders' White House bid has been crippled (none / 0) (#1)
    by CoralGables on Sun Apr 24, 2016 at 08:24:12 PM EST
    for a long time.

    But the money was good so his race continues. That money surely began to dry up after New York.

    Weekend at Bernie's: the Road (none / 0) (#2)
    by ExPatObserver on Sun Apr 24, 2016 at 10:33:55 PM EST
    to the White House. Playing at a primary state near you.

    OMG! That was such a stupid movie, ... (none / 0) (#30)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Apr 25, 2016 at 06:17:48 PM EST
    ... with the kind of low-brow humor which makes you laugh out loud at more than one point, even though you otherwise really ought to know better, but don't because of that smoking bong in your hands.
    ;-D

    Parent
    But I LOVED Susan Sarandon! (none / 0) (#36)
    by ExPatObserver on Mon Apr 25, 2016 at 10:54:34 PM EST
    She really makes Bernie come alive!

    Parent
    ... save for that of Sen. Bernie's spokeswoman.

    Parent
    Dammit! (none / 0) (#74)
    by Steve13209 on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 05:09:04 PM EST
    RHPS

    Parent
    While I have no doubt (none / 0) (#3)
    by Nemi on Mon Apr 25, 2016 at 06:14:39 AM EST
    that both Bernie Sanders and his campaign are willing to say and do anything to win, I wonder what Bernie Sanders reaction is to Jeff Weaver's claim that Bernie Sanders To Stay A Democrat For Life And Support Clinton If She Is The Nominee.

    Has he himself said that he will stay a Democrat? And as for supporting Hillary Clinton I believe what he's actually said is that he will help defeat the Republican candidate should Hillary Clinton be the Democratic nominee, but that's certainly not the same. And I somehow doubt he will ever say those words.

    Btw I've just noticed that when Jeff Weavers speaks he has the same 'pouty' mouth as Donald Trump when he speaks ...

    Listening. (none / 0) (#4)
    by Suisser1 on Mon Apr 25, 2016 at 06:58:38 AM EST
    hard to believe that a professional journalist/commentator unintentionally used the phrase "fainting couch" to describe Clinton campaign headquarters - especially after the set-up question the comment required.

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#5)
    by Nemi on Mon Apr 25, 2016 at 07:17:40 AM EST
    Tom Watson reacted to that on Twitter.

    But you know it fits so well with the "I think the secretary is getting a little bit nervous"-Bernie talking point.

    Parent

    Actually (none / 0) (#6)
    by Nemi on Mon Apr 25, 2016 at 07:34:14 AM EST
    I really can't with all the weasel talk and dirty tricks, not least the rhetorical punches below the belt. And I'm not talking about the Republicans' ongoing size measuring, allthough I can't with that either. :-/

    Parent
    And, no surprise (none / 0) (#38)
    by Nemi on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 07:35:19 AM EST
    that's what Melissa McEwan hears too ... or rather doesn't hear: Bernie Sanders does not say he will support Hillary Clinton.

    He can't credibly say he will endorse her, because he's cast her as emblematic of everything wrong with U.S. politics, and so he evades and deflects--which would be bad enough, but then he launches into a reiteration of the very unfair attacks that put him in that corner in the first place.

    At this point, it is clear that Bernie cannot win. And instead of truly doing everything he can to help Hillary--which is the best and only thing he can do to make sure a Republican does not get elected--he doubles down on his attacks on her.

    Though I don't agree with her that it is due to Bernie Sanders having 'painted himself into a corner' by going after her so fiercely. I don't think he would ever have supported her ... regardless! Period.

    Parent

    With the stranglehold the two parties (none / 0) (#7)
    by Steve13209 on Mon Apr 25, 2016 at 08:13:16 AM EST
    have on national and even state elections, people are forced to run as a D or R just to get on the final ballot and have a chance to win. I think the amount of support Bernie has received FROM DEMOCRATS in the primaries, he has every reason to run as a Democrat. Look at all the votes he got in New York, a closed primary.

    Bernie (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by jbindc on Mon Apr 25, 2016 at 08:50:39 AM EST
    Relatively (1.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Steve13209 on Mon Apr 25, 2016 at 09:31:11 AM EST
    Even at 26%, that is a lot of registered Democrats that support Sanders instead of the Democrat standard-bearer, Hillary Clinton. Why aren't 90% of Democrats supporting Clinton if she's who the party is putting up?

    I will answer my own question. The Party is there for the Party officials, not necessarily the members of the party. This happens in union management a bit also. The Union officials vote to support the Party nominee, while the rank and file may support an alternative candidate.

    Parent

    Personally, I think (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by CST on Mon Apr 25, 2016 at 09:37:46 AM EST
    The Democratic party is a big tent that has room for lots of diverging points of views, including Bernie Sanders and the people who support him.

    But make no mistake, it's not the Party officials that put Clinton ahead in pledged delegates and the popular vote.  She's still very popular, some people just like Bernie more.

    Parent

    Agreed CST (none / 0) (#12)
    by Steve13209 on Mon Apr 25, 2016 at 09:59:22 AM EST
    My only slight disagreement is that a lot of the Pledged delegates were probably a result of the DNC and state parties whipping up support for Clinton. Not so much for Sanders, the Independent. This is reality, not a complaint.

    From http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/25/us/politics/bernie-sanders-campaign.html

    "The institutional bulwarks against Mr. Sanders are significant: Hundreds of the party's "superdelegates" have endorsed Mrs. Clinton, a signal of her broad support among the party's power brokers. The Democratic National Committee now relies on Mrs. Clinton's fund-raising to provide a fifth of its monthly income, an arrangement the Sanders campaign has criticized."

    The DNC is now a down-ballot candidate, apparently.

    Parent

    Again (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by jbindc on Mon Apr 25, 2016 at 10:16:17 AM EST
    There is one Democrat in this race.   One candidate who has worked for 40 years supporting the party and other Dem candidates.  Why shouldn't state parties whip up support for her? (There is only innuendo and conjecture that the DNC has rigged the race for HRC, not any actual proof).

    Parent
    You are confusing the terms (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Towanda on Mon Apr 25, 2016 at 08:49:11 PM EST
    pledged delegates and superdelegates.  

    Understandably, perhaps, as your candidate's campaign can be confusing about that, shifting from bashing superdelegates to stealing superdelegates -- and even pledged delegates, somehow.  

    This is when they cannot be taken seriously. Professional campaign staff ought to know the difference.  Pledged delegates represent votes cast.  So, you surely cannot mean what you wrote of them.

    And if you meant, in that sentence, superdelegates -- I'm still now sure what you mean, since it seems quite circular.  Superdelegates are mainly elected officials -- elected by us -- who run the state parties . . . and the DNC.  That is the reality.

    Parent

    I meant pledged Democrats (none / 0) (#41)
    by Steve13209 on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 08:42:36 AM EST
    And yes, they are allocated by % of the vote, which is heavily influenced by the DNC and local parties, who have made a choice of candidate during the primary season.

    This is not a normal occurrence. The Party infrastructure is normally put in place to get the PARTY to win, not a specific candidate within the party.


    Parent

    How (none / 0) (#46)
    by FlJoe on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 09:15:38 AM EST
    exactly does the DNC heavily influence voters in the primary?

    Parent
    Didn't you (none / 0) (#49)
    by jbindc on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 09:17:32 AM EST
    Get a secret decoder ring with your check?

    Parent
    Oh that's right (none / 0) (#54)
    by FlJoe on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 09:22:23 AM EST
    I forgot. I was a Bernie supporter  until that night when DWS came over with a bottle of wine and a big fat one, haven't been the same since.

    Parent
    I guess if you don't believe (none / 0) (#59)
    by Steve13209 on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 09:41:01 AM EST
    getting money from someone influences your actions, then I suppose the DNC isn't helping Hillary, who is pumping millions into the party apparatus, including paying some of the salaries of the DNC.

    I understand it's useless to argue about an insurgency candidacy at this blog. I read TL a lot and the Hillary cheering section just seemed to need a little reality check.

    I'll tone it down since I don't want to be thought of as a troll. But God, I hope Bernie wins California...

    Parent

    I guess that explains (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by jbindc on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 09:43:56 AM EST
    Why the Sanders campaign, and now his supporters, have adopted right wing memes to argue against HRC.  It's all that support coming from Karl Rove's SuperPac.

    Parent
    I've heard that a few times. (none / 0) (#61)
    by ExPatObserver on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 09:53:35 AM EST
    Do you have a link? What's the name of the PAC?

    Parent
    Karl Rove's group (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by jbindc on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 09:57:38 AM EST
    Is American Crossroads.  They have been going after Hillary,  helping Bernie out (even though it's supposedly not coordinated).

    There are other GOP groups too.

    Parent

    Supposedly (none / 0) (#75)
    by Steve13209 on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 05:10:35 PM EST
    As if Rove and Sanders are coordinating. lol.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 05:38:32 PM EST
    Bernie had a chance to denounce Rove's support in one of the debates and he refused.

    Parent
    I don't understand what you are saying, Steve. (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by caseyOR on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 10:11:19 AM EST
    Are you saying that the DNC is controlling how individual voters cast their ballots? I don't see how that would be possible.

    Is your complaint with closed primaries where only registered Party members can vote? Whether a primary in a given state is open or closed is determined by each state's legislature, not the DNC.

    Likewise, each state's legislature decides its own deadline for registering to vote and declaring a Party preference. For example, the ridiculously long time between New York's final date to change Party affiliation and the actual election has been New York law since, i think, the late 1800s. This pressed the DNC.

    Where the DNC might have been able to put a serious thumb on the scale for Clinton would have been in caucus states. If the DNC had mobilized state Democratic Parties to get voters to the caucuses in sufficient numbers, and had maneuvered to control this caucuses, that would have helped Clinton enormously.

    But the DNC did not do that. The DNC flubbed setting the debate schedule, arguably a much simpler task than throwing an election to a specific candidate.

    Yes, Clinton is raising money for the DNC and downticket candidates, something Sanders also could be doing if he was serious about getting his agenda passed into law. By the way, part of that money Clinton is raising for the DNC will be used to help elect whichever of the two, Clinton or Sanders, wins the nomination. Were Sanders to win the nomination he would run in the general election using money raised by Clinton.

    Parent

    I was saying that the DNC is openly supporting (none / 0) (#77)
    by Steve13209 on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 05:14:41 PM EST
    Clinton in this primary, which is not what the committee is supposed to do. They are supposed to support the Party nominee in the general election, not during the primary.

    Parent
    I know the Sanders campaign keeps (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by caseyOR on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 05:46:32 PM EST
    insisting the DNC is openly supporting Clinton, but where is the proof? What has the DNC done that can honestly be called "openly supporting Clinton"?

    I am serious here, Steve. I have not seen it. Help me out, please.

    Parent

    Where (none / 0) (#78)
    by FlJoe on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 05:28:05 PM EST
    When and how have they "openly" supported her? You continue to make stuff up. They are not supposed to do it and they don't.

    I am sure you will go on about the debates and DWS an yadda, yadda ya, but just because Debbie is a dunce and Democrats are acting like donkeys doesn't mean the system is rigged.

    Parent

    ... for the pending demise of Bernie Sanders' candidacy, perhaps you ought to consider that despite his supporters' admirable fervor for him, his message of political revolution actually had a rather limited general appeal and thus failed to resonate among the Democratic electorate at large.

    Parent
    It's not easy to spark a revolution (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by CoralGables on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 11:55:38 AM EST
    when those you'd like to partake in the revolt are out shopping at the Apple store, downing $8 craft beers at the gastropub, or too busy on Twitter or Facebook to vote.


    Parent
    That (none / 0) (#70)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 04:29:29 PM EST
    Is just cold!!!

    Parent
    Make that frosty cold, ... (none / 0) (#87)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 09:14:12 PM EST
    ... just like that craft beer in the brewpub!

    Parent
    More than 10 million votes for HRC... (none / 0) (#11)
    by christinep on Mon Apr 25, 2016 at 09:56:06 AM EST
    ...that says a lot.  Like it or not, the US has not adopted a realistic multiple-party system ... for all practical purposes, we have operated primarily with a two-party system at the national level.  In that respect, Steve, it comes down to: Deal with it.  The alternative but-but-buts that you seem to be talking about are little more than what-ifs.  And, certainly, if you want to vote for a third party candidate, please proceed.

    Parent
    I understand the party situation (none / 0) (#13)
    by Steve13209 on Mon Apr 25, 2016 at 10:02:47 AM EST
    and I don't think it should change because Bernie supporters want it to change. It should change to make the party more like the Democrats it is supposed to represent (except that is not what the political parties do in practice).

    My original post was not a complaint about the system, but to Jeralyn's comment that Sanders should run as a 3rd party candidate and that he isn't running as a Democrat. I think he IS running as a Warren Democrat...just not ready for prime-time yet.

    Parent

    I think the problem is (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by jbindc on Mon Apr 25, 2016 at 10:12:00 AM EST
    It should change to make the party more like the Democrats it is supposed to represent (except that is not what the political parties do in practice).

    You think all/most Democrats are one way. While the party as a whole has certainly shifted leftward, the majority of the party is still made up of those who are moderate to "somewhat liberal".  "Very liberal" voters still make up a small minority of the party, so I think there's a good argument that the party actually IS like the Democrats it represents, not what the people on the outer edge want it to look like.

    Parent

    Age is the deciding factor (none / 0) (#17)
    by TrevorBolder on Mon Apr 25, 2016 at 10:56:35 AM EST
    An NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey released Monday has Clinton at 50% support to Sanders' 48% -- down from Clinton's nine-point advantage in the same poll one month ago.
    Clinton's strongest group is those 50 and older. With them, she leads 62% to 35%. Sanders, meanwhile, is up 66% to 34% among those ages 18 to 49.

    Parent
    Feh (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 25, 2016 at 03:13:07 PM EST
    we've had around 17 million people vote in the primary so far. Those polls are less than worthless and besides the group that supports Sanders are the least reliable when it comes to actually voting. Yeah, they'll tell a pollster they are "for" him but so far as we've seen in the primaries they like rallies a lot but actual voting not so much.

    Parent
    Still have never heard (none / 0) (#18)
    by jbindc on Mon Apr 25, 2016 at 11:06:14 AM EST
    What the relevance of a national poll between Clinton and Sanders is.  They aren't running against each other on a national ele tion, and presumably, some of the people polled have already voted.

    Parent
    A National Poll right now is meaningless (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by CoralGables on Mon Apr 25, 2016 at 11:56:20 AM EST
    The only polling that actually has any substance to it are polls from the five states voting tomorrow.

    To return to being competitive (not leading) Sanders would need to win all five states tomorrow by about 20%. If Sanders takes all five 60% to 40% (or better), there is reason to return to the Bernie conversation. Otherwise the clock remains ticking with even less chance of him winning after tomorrow than he has today.


    Parent

    Basically (none / 0) (#26)
    by TrevorBolder on Mon Apr 25, 2016 at 02:39:22 PM EST
    There are 2 factions to the Democrats

    What 60's Democrats used to say...Don't trust anyone over 30,

    Has changed to,

    Don't trust anyone over 50,

    Although I would place that median down to 40

    Parent

    Or (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by jbindc on Mon Apr 25, 2016 at 02:42:53 PM EST
    Don't trust anyone under 35.

    Parent
    Just to gauge support from different (none / 0) (#48)
    by Steve13209 on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 09:16:37 AM EST
    parts of the Party itself. If Bernie is winning the young vote, it may make sense for the future of the Democratic Party, to encourage those voters to remain Democrats and not have to vote 3rd party.

    Parent
    That may be so (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by jbindc on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 09:19:44 AM EST
    But a national poll tells us nothing when more than half the country has already voted, and Hillary and Bernie aren't running against each other in a national election.

    Parent
    Warren is not a socialist.... (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by sallywally on Mon Apr 25, 2016 at 12:48:39 PM EST
    She is an incrementalist Dem. When Hillary was in the Senate her voting record was as liberal as Warren's.

    Parent
    More liberal I believe (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by smott on Mon Apr 25, 2016 at 01:40:49 PM EST
    Also Clinton was more liberal than Obama.
    And only a tiny bit to the right of Sanders.

    But the narratives cling on.....

    Parent

    Define liberal, then we can compare (none / 0) (#51)
    by Steve13209 on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 09:20:00 AM EST
    That 93% voting agreement between Clinton and Sanders is more a measure of the lack of bills offered in Congress that would actually show differences in their policies. I doubt there were many single-issue bills voted on for single payer, or breaking up the banks, or other Sanders policy positions.

    Parent
    True (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by jbindc on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 09:21:30 AM EST
    Kind of hard to define liberal to encapsulate giving the NRA immunity or poisoning poor childten in South Texas...

    Parent
    The Party is not some (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by caseyOR on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 05:54:14 PM EST
    vague amorphous being. The Party is the people who join the Party. Want to change the Democratic Party? Get active in the Democratic Party. Bring others who share your views into the Democratic Party.

    It is not enough to show up every four years to vote or maybe attend a rally. That will not change the Party very much.

    Something that seems very overlooked in the reporting on this campaign is that Clinton is winning by a goodly margin among voters who are actual registered Democrats. These are people who have taken the most basic step in Party membership- they declared a Party preference when they registered to vote.

    There is a reason Sanders is more successful in states with open primaries than he is in those with closed primaries. A majority of Democrats support Clinton. Sanders does better with voters who are not Democrats.

    Parent

    It really does make sense (none / 0) (#14)
    by Steve13209 on Mon Apr 25, 2016 at 10:08:47 AM EST
    The incrementalists are generally fine with the status quo and don't see a need to change things. But the progressives, by definition, clearly want to make strides to CHANGE the status quo.

    It's all just a difference in beliefs and priorities. As I have said before, I was a Clinton supporter in 2008, and I prefer her to any GOP candidate by a mile.

    Being in New York, a very safe state for the Dems, I probably will vote third party. I am not crazy enuff to chance losing the SCOTUS again to conservatives, but I am not blind enough to think Clinton will put someone on the court that matches my views on Executive Power, NSA abuses, 4th amendment abuses, etc. Sure they will be pro-choice...but after that, probably pro-business, pro-war on terror, etc.

    Parent

    You've confused (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by smott on Mon Apr 25, 2016 at 01:42:18 PM EST
    Incrementalists with conservatives, who are the ones who don't want to change, or change much.

    Incrementalists want change, but recognize it often cannot happen fast.

    Parent

    You've confused moderate republicans (none / 0) (#53)
    by Steve13209 on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 09:22:01 AM EST
    with HRC...an easy mistake. TPP is not an incremental change for the good. It is locking in the status quo. HRC was for it, negotiated it!

    Parent
    And you knoe (none / 0) (#57)
    by jbindc on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 09:26:04 AM EST
    She also had a boss who wanted it done.  What was his name again....?  Was she NOT supposed to do what her boss wanted?

    Parent
    nonresponse (none / 0) (#67)
    by Steve13209 on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 12:13:10 PM EST
    She called the TPP the gold standard of trade deals. She was for it until Bernie forced her away from it. Don't use Obama as an excuse, since she made it clear she supported it even after she left the Dept of State.

    Parent
    Actually, you're only half right (none / 0) (#68)
    by jbindc on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 12:20:41 PM EST
    So am I.

    In fairness to Clinton, the TPP was still under negotiation when Clinton made the "gold standard" comment. The partners only finalized the deal this year. It's quite possible the deal looks dramatically different than it did at the early stages of negotiations, when Clinton was at the State Department -- something Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill pointed out to us for this fact-check. The negotiations have been conducted in secret, so it's hard for us to assess that ourselves. Also, as secretary of state, she spoke as a representative of the Obama administration, which was and remains wholeheartedly in favor of the deal.


    Parent
    Fair enough (none / 0) (#76)
    by Steve13209 on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 05:11:44 PM EST
    An illuminating aspect of the GOP mess (none / 0) (#20)
    by christinep on Mon Apr 25, 2016 at 12:15:02 PM EST
    Whether the GOP mess/implosion/break-up happening today offers a potential learning experience for Democrats ... who knows?  I think that schism(s) often reflect absolutism, refusal to genuinely compromise, rigid positioning. We can certainly see the evidence of that in whatever the Republican Party has become. In so many areas, the purity position--aka "my way or the highway"--has an attraction. Initially, the rock-solid, never changing attitude of the non-compromising politician bespeaks integrity and more. Yet, after awhile, disenchantment sets in when nothing moves and nothing is accomplished ... all that nothing in the name of an ideology or sacrosanct position.

    IMO, what the GOP mess reminds me of is not unlike the stories about the Salem witch trials.  Whether the pure conservative (try Cruz, e.g.) is standing on supposed principle to shut down the government to satisfy his unforgiving positioning or whether the hysterical TeaPots drove so many to similar hysterical positioning or whether that bunch is now prepared to burn itself down because none of them appear capable of working together anymore may not matter to us now.  In fact, Democrats should gain handily IF the Repubs keep driving their fiasco further.  I'm actually beginning to wonder how small that Repub convention will become, in the name of purity, as official after official denounces the process and announces intent not to attend.

    The problem with political purity on either side, the problem with almost mixing politics with personal beliefs to the extent that deals/compromise/resolution must be considered evil or close, the problem with a sect or faction of either party refusing, ultimately, to work with other party factions in the interest of all the members IS that the exclusionary view isolates itself with its self-absorption and may well move those whom they are trying to convince in the opposite direction.

    As we come to find in life and politics, there are many types of change.  To understand & accept & even practice incrementalism does not mean to accept the what-is or the status quo.  For me, on a personal level, it means to define priorities and to discern degrees of change ... and, in politics, I consider the absolutist approach typically self-defeating. In the world of the political party, the Big Tent has many advantages over a group that would marginalize itself along the lines of True Believers. For one thing, recognizing that a political party is not a church helps in averting a Repub style conflagration.

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by sallywally on Mon Apr 25, 2016 at 01:04:54 PM EST
    Sanders qualifies as a rigid ideologue. He fits the description in this post.

    Parent
    I think your sticking an 'ist' on it like it is (none / 0) (#86)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 08:54:39 PM EST
    some kind of philosophy rather than just the way change usually happens. If I realize something is goiing to take a year to accomplish rather than a week, it is not that I 'believe in' some philosophy of " Incrementatilism ". It means I am a realistic planner. Just try promising your boss the moon at your job, while not having a prayer of making it happen, and see how long you last.

    Parent
    So, (none / 0) (#31)
    by jbindc on Mon Apr 25, 2016 at 07:50:18 PM EST
    Asked if he would encourage his backers to support Clinton, Sanders says "if we end up losing ... it is incumbent upon her" to make the case.

    (Quoting tweet by G. Benedetti of Politco)

    I guess (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 25, 2016 at 07:55:44 PM EST
    the quote about if you want something done ask a woman not a man applies here.

    Parent
    Ugh (none / 0) (#33)
    by smott on Mon Apr 25, 2016 at 08:05:32 PM EST
    Arrogant ass

    Parent
    Ga6thDem is (none / 0) (#81)
    by NYShooter on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 05:47:01 PM EST
    a female, and,

    certainly, not an "ass."

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 06:08:43 PM EST
    I took it that it was a statement about what Bernie said.

    Parent
    The writing on the wall to me is that Sanders is (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Cashmere on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 07:53:22 AM EST
    a spoiler.  He seems very defeated, depressed, angry...  and angry old man who is not getting his way and is subtly encouraging his millennial supporters to take their marbles and go home.

    Parent
    Personally (none / 0) (#71)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 04:44:57 PM EST
    I'm ready for them to do that too.  Screw them.  They will not decide the election.  Most of them probably would not have voted anyway.  Like you, I'm done.  Screw Berine and his glassy eyed acolytes and his wife and the Buick they drove here in.

    Parent
    It seems (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 05:05:37 PM EST
    a lot of them can't even be bothered to show up to vote for Bernie so yeah, they're probably not going to show up for the GE either.

    Parent
    Isn't it obvious? (none / 0) (#89)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 05:52:56 AM EST
    Bernie is a true believer!

    He has not wavered in his beliefs for 30 years.

    As this campaign has moved on, and Madame Sec has appropriated his positions, yes he is angry.

    He thinks he would have won going away if he campaigned against Hillary and her prior positions.

    He did not figure in the Clinton way, they are consummate  politicians, give the electorate what they want.

    I guess you are right, he is depressed, defeated and angry. The only option left for the true believer is to take his campaign to the convention, and cement his ideas in the party platform.

    Parent

    Leadership! (none / 0) (#37)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 05:38:45 AM EST